<p>Yeah, these "ghetto guys" are horrible. Can't we put them in a camp or something? Or at least force them to work at McDonalds? For real though, nobody is saying that there aren't lazy people out there, but the vast majority of poor people actually do have jobs, and they probably work more hours than you or I have at any point in our lives. And while we're talking about ghetto guys lounging around all day, I'd say about 80% of them (in my area) are completey off the charts crazy, which makes working even the simplest of jobs a near impossibility. So using people like that to make your point about poor people in general (working poor) is not an acurate way of defending your position.</p>
<p>I'm curious to know if this is an actual "ghetto," or simply the part of town with the most affordable housing.</p>
<p>My dad makes something like three times the national average a year, and we're eat free food. Has no one ever heard of circumstance?</p>
<p>Actually, a "ghetto" is a concentration of one ethnic group living together in a neighborhood. Thus, you could have the Catholic ghetto, or the Jewish ghetto, or the Italian ghetto, etc. It does not necessarily connote poverty.</p>
<p>The mini-vocabulary lesson was nice (note: not being sarcastic :) ), but do you think that's what sakky meant? The number of people who are aware of that definition is probably the same as the number that realizes "holocaust" refers to any massive slaughter, not just what the Jews endured in WWII.</p>
<p>No, but "ghetto" is an often misused word. But on the topic of homeless people, I think alot of them have mental illness which may have contributed to their situation in the first place. On the topic of able-bodied adults choosing not to work, I think that they should not be able to collect welfare for years on end. I agree with sakky...that is just laziness. (I have a relative who fits into this category).</p>
<p>Right, but sakky clearly does not understand that the majority of people living under the poverty line actually do work. His or her (I apologize for not being sure of the gender) statement that "all the people I know who work 80 hours a week are like investment bankers and doctors" and the implication that most who work long hours will earn an decent paycheck shows how little s/he knows about poverty in the US. I won't even go into how incredibly offensive and ignorant it was to say that the reason poor students achieve less is because they are raised by "lazy and unmotivated" parents. </p>
<p>BTW sakky, that 12.5% figure counts government cash assistance as income. If you were to take that out, the poverty rate would increase.</p>
<p>I'm just going to throw this hypothetical situation out there, if you were forced to go to the library everyday (assuming you had lots of caffiene and possibly adderall for my fellow ADDers) and study for 8 hours, I believe you'd become a pretty damn educated individual.</p>
<p>So what i'm really asking you is, do we put too much emphasis and certain degrees, from certain schools?</p>
<p>saved, but how would you know what to read? How would you read it? What would you take from it? I think you need teachers and other students to guide your education. They dont MAKE it, but they guide it, help you flesh out ideas and give you a foundation to build your own theories.</p>
<p>
[quote]
2003 poverty rate - 12.5%
2003 unemployment rate at its peak (June) - 6.4%
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what about it? The 'poverty' level is really an artificial concept. Do you realize that the poverty level in the US is far better than how the vast majority of people in the world ive? The US is one of the few nations in which people who are classified as in 'poverty' can still reasonably own their own cars. Obviously probably a shabby car, but still, a car. There are billions of people in the world who would prefer to be living in poverty in the US. There are billions of people who could never dream of owning a car, even a shabby car. There are billions of people who could never dream of even having a TV or a phone, something that many Americans who are in poverty have.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Many of the unemployed were educated and not looking to work at McDonalds for $5.15 an hour.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>But why not? It think it's better to take a job, even a low-end job, than to sit around and do nothing. </p>
<p>If you think that I'm "ignorant", are you prepared to say the same about Thomas Sowell? Keep in mind that Sowell, an African-American got into Harvard in the 1950's, before the advent of affirmative action, holds a PhD in economics from Chicago, and is currently a Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institute. It is he that I got my ideas from.</p>
<p>"While there are more than 19 million people working in households with incomes in the top 20 percent, there are fewer than 8 million people working in households in the bottom 20 percent. How much of an injustice is it that people who work get more money than people who don't work? </p>
<p>If you are talking about working full-time, 50 or more weeks a year, then there are more people doing that in the top 5 percent of households than in the bottom 20 percent. As Casey Stengel used to say, you can look it up. These are Census data, available on-line from the Current Population Survey, Table HINC-06. </p>
<p>It may not be a breakthrough on the frontiers of economics to say that work pays, but it does. Among households in the bottom 20 percent in income, there are more than 13 million people who do not work at all and fewer than 8 million who do work, counting both full time and part time workers. "</p>
<p>Hence the thesis is clear - the more you work, the more money you tend to make. Conversely, those who make little money tend to be the ones that work less, or don't work at all.</p>
<p>Now, don't get me wrong. I never said that ALL poor people don't work. And neither does Sowell. Again, I quote, " Among households in the bottom 20 percent in income, there are more than 13 million people who do not work at all and fewer than 8 million who do work". So obviously there are some that work. But there is a definite correlation. When measured by household income, the bottom 20% of households are far far more likely to have nobody working in that household than the top 20% of households. That's an undeniable fact. Like Sowell said, you can look it up yourself. I think it is ignorant to ignore the simple fact that the more hours you work, the more income you tend to make.</p>
<p>The simple fact is, poverty is not just a matter of having little money. It's also a culture. The fact is, a lot of poverty (not all, but a lot of it) can in fact be explained by culture. A lot of poor people are that way because of their own personal irresponsible and regressive behavior. Bill Cosby commented on that recently. So have plenty of other social and political leaders, ranging from the liberal to the conservative wings. It's not just a matter of people not getting jobs because they have no education or no skills. It's not that simple. There is also a strain of people not really wanting to get an education or not really wanting to get skills. In fact, I think we've all seen it in our own schools. At every school there are some kids who really want to study hard and get the best grades they can. And then there are other kids who just don't want to study and who'd rather spend all their time hanging out. And in many cases (again, not all cases, but many cases), those kids behave like that because their parents never taught them any better. </p>
<p>In fact, this is why most social thinkers, from the left-wing to the right-wing agree that the ultimate way to cure poverty is not simply by pouring money into the poor areas. The real way to cure poverty is to change mindsets and encourage people to develop better work habits and respect for education. It's the old argument about giving you a fish vs. teaching you to fish. In this case, it's now about providing you with the opportunity to improve your skills/education vs. convincing you to WANT to improve your skills/education. In other words, the real key is not so much the skills but rather about personal motivation and personal initiative. </p>
<p>Nevertheless, the point is that poverty has an important cultural and behavorial component to it. For example, why is it that Asian immigrants can arrive in the US in extreme poverty and have to live in the poorest neighborhoods and have to send their kids to the worst schools (because they don't have any money), and yet their kids tend to do far better scholastically than the neighborhood kids at that same bad school? Why is it that plenty of able-bodied Americans complain that they can't find work, and yet illegal Mexican immigrants always seem to find something?</p>
<p>Yet another example of how little you seem to know about this. Many illegal immigrants take jobs for $1/hr because they are not afforded the protection from worker abuse that legal residents are. They're actually a good example of hardworking people that struggle financially.</p>
<p>Also, regardless of whether poverty in the US is better than poverty in the rest of the world, it's still poverty. Trust me, $18k a year is not easy to live on, and if you think they have it so good, you should try spending a day in their shoes. You said the reason there weren't many people that benefitted from Harvard's financial aid system was because they were raised by lazy and unmotivated people. But clearly, government statistics show that there are more poor (bottom 12.5%) people that do work than those that do not. You were basing your assumptions on a minority of the poor, making it very clear that your initial comments were out of line, no matter how much you try to backpedal now.</p>
<p>And do you have statistics about these poor Asians or are you just making assumptions without doing your research? I think you'd be surprised at how many poor Asians struggle academically, despite the Asian culture's emphasis on education's importance (the lack of which, btw, does not translate to "lazy and unmotivated" for other cultures).</p>
<p>BTW, linking to a conservative website? Not the best way to make your argument. At least go for an objective source next time.</p>
<p>Also, no one's saying there <em>isn't</em> a correlation between hours worked and income, just that it isn't as absolute as you think it is. Full-time on minimum wage gets you $10,500 a year. Work 80 hours a week and you net a cool $21k. A far cry from the doctors and investment bankers you used as the example of people you know that work those kinds of hours.</p>
<p>And just out of curiousity, do you personally know anyone living under the poverty line? Making less that $40k/yr even? It's always easy to badmouth a demographic that's faceless to you.</p>
<p>Public vs. Private: an unending discussion: where to begin.</p>
<p>I attended both types of schools. There is no question that you can get a quality education at a good public university for less than 50% of the cost of a private university. If you live near a top notch public university, this may well be the route that you should choose. However, public universities have some severe drawbacks that accompany that lower price tag:</p>
<ol>
<li>Larger classes in state universities:
Public universities usually have larger classes especially during the first two years. Many people think that this only applies for the first two years and then equalizes with the smaller class sizes found in private schools. That is NOT necessarily the case. I taught a junior level accounting class at the University of Maryland that had almost 150 kids!</li>
</ol>
<p>I should also note that there are some public schools that emphasize smaller classes and emulate LAC type of training. A good example of this would be St. Marys here in Maryland or William and Mary in Virginia. Thus, my statement regarding public schools, while usually true, isn't always the case. However, there is no doubt in my mind that generally you get smaller classes in private colleges than you get in public universities.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>More TAs found at public schools: Again, this isn't always the case,but certainly is more often true. At the larger public schools, kids will find TAs in many courses for several years. </p></li>
<li><p>Less Efficient administration in public schools: This seems to be the case from my experience. Registration seems tougher at public universities with longer lines, more hassle and more uncaring advisors. I definitely felt more like a number at a public university than at the private schools that I attended. I should note that public universities do try to lessen this problem with honors status, which allow for early registration etc. Honors status does make things better, but can also be found in private schools too.</p></li>
<li><p>Private Universities tend to have students from richer or more prestigious parents: I would say that this is a definite plus for private schools. I met a number of students who hailed from very wealthy backgrounds in my private schools,which was generally not the case with public schools. In addition, many of the rich and famous send their kids to private schools as well. If obtaining connections is part of a good education then private schools definitely have the edge here.</p></li>
<li><p>Getting Internships and jobs: At least for the schools within my experience, I have found that private schools tend to do a better job at finding internships and jobs upon graduation. Certainly there are exceptions in the public area such as Unviersity of Cincinnati,which alledged to have one of the top internship programs around. However, the private schools that I attended seemed better at this.</p></li>
<li><p>You are more like a number at a public schools that at a private school: I have found this to be true. There is much less personal interaction among advisors and even faculty at public schools. However, this certainly does vary from school to school</p></li>
<li><p>Private schools tend to give out better grades: Again this does vary,but I would agree with this. Public universities are under great pressure to flunk out ( renamed weed out) students due to the tremendous number of incoming transfer students from community colleges and elsewhere. The curve seemed a lot stricter at public universities than that of private schools.</p></li>
<li><p>Facilities: Public schools tend to have some of the more expensive facilities such as cyclotrons, etc. but private schools tend to have more of the less expensive ( and more student friendly) type of stuff such as computers. Public schools will emphasize their huge, expensive equipment. However, usually in the practical, nitty gritty types of needed stuff, private schools usually do a better job. For example, there are usually more computer labs per student at a private schools than at a public school. Again, this can vary from school to school.</p></li>
<li><p>Public school budgets are more prone to yearly cuts: This is clearly the case. Private schools tend to be more insolated with higher endowments. If a state is having a tough time with tax revenues, they will cut college funding in a heartbeat. In fact, some public universities with high endowments are seeing a shrinking portion of state funding. U Michigan tuition is at a record high and still soaring. </p></li>
</ol>
<p>10: Public schools don't have strong programs for learning disabled kids: I have definitely found this to be true. If you check college guides for schools with learning disability programs,most of the top rated programs are in private colleges. Public colleges really don't address this very well.</p>
<p>11.Big Name faculty: Actually, with the exception of the top private schools, public universities generally attract more well- known faculty. I think this is due to the fact they public universities generally provide higher pay then their private school counterparts according to the Chronicle of Higher Education. This however, does vary from school to school. For example, The unversity of Maryland pays their faculty significantly more than that of other Maryland state colleges. However, as a general rule, public universities can afford higher salaries to professors.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You get closer student-faculty interaction with private schools than with public universities: I would say this is generally the case. I had a lot more interaction at all private schools that I attended and taught at than at the public schools that I attended and taught at. Maybe this also does vary from school to school,but I think it is a good general rule.</p></li>
<li><p>You get more geographically diverse students at private schools. This is generally the case. State schools generally attract most students from that state. Certainly, there are exceptions such as Michigan,but this is the general rule.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>The bottom line is that although public college are a much better financial deal then their private school counterparts, there are some significant drawbacks to attending a public university.</p>
<p>Admittedly, these are general findings based on my limited experience. Perhaps others will comment further.</p>
<p>I think big name faculty depends on the subject. Many state universities do have professors that are leaders in their field, making those universities especially good for graduate study. But I think that as an undergrad, unless you are absolutely sure of the field you want to go into (and probably pursue graduate work in), you'd be better off at one of the well-known private universities if respected faculty is important to you. Then again, if we're talking overall public v. private then I think you'd be right, though I'll still say it really depends on your preferred field of study. Well-known faculty in the English department isn't going to be a big help if you want to major in physics and loathe writing/literature.</p>
<p>taxguy kind of reminded us that we should keep this thread on topic now. sakky, if you would like to keep discussing the poverty issue, feel free to make a thread in the CC cafe and I will be glad to continue that debate there. :) If not, I'll consider the issue dropped by both of us.</p>
<p>Given an education budget, an individual can take more classes at a Public school, and arguably get a better education as a result. My son, for example, will end up (hopefully!) with two degrees, a minor, and about 190 credit-hours at graduation. He takes classes not related to any degree-path...he just takes them out of pure intellectual curiosity. </p>
<p>Such an education would not have been possible at a private...it just would have been far too costly. I would argue for students like my son, a Public can offer the superior education.</p>
<p>Major state schools tend to have more "school spirit" and large scale events and activities than most privates. They also tend to be major forces in running the state's businesses and politics in most states outside the northeast. If you are working in Seattle your Udub connections will be more valuable than any school in the northeast. Same for UT and TAMU in Texas, Michigan in Michigan,etc.</p>
<p>Taxguy, just wanted to reply to some of your points based upon my experience with my own education. I am heeding your disclaimers that your opinions are based upon your limited experience. I am speaking from the perspective of someone who attends a top 30/top 5 public university.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>Larger classes in state universities:
Most of my classes have been small in size with less than 30 students apiece. I average about one big lecture course each of the four semesters I have been a student, and it seems to be pretty much the same for my boyfriend, who attends Duke. I have never had a class over 30 in my major (Spanish), though the demand for the major and relative lack of funding for the department (combined with gross departmental mismanagement) make getting into courses incredibly difficult.</p></li>
<li><p>More TAs found at public schools:
I've had one Spanish course (the introductory major course) taught by a TA, and the majority of recitations and discussion sections are lead by them. I can't comment with authority on how widespread TAs teaching science courses is though, as I avoid them like the plague.</p></li>
<li><p>Less Efficient administration in public schools:
Our registration process is completely webbased, and while it is difficult to get into courses as a freshman, availability frees up considerably after that first year. I receive regular communication from my advising team, and the ones I have met with (I added a second major and then dropped my first major down to a minor, so I've had a couple different ones) seemed to be sincerely interested in my progress - I didn't feel like I was "just a number" during my meetings with them, although I also didn't feel like I got anything out of the meetings, either.</p></li>
<li><p>Private Universities tend to have students from richer or more prestigious parents:
I'd agree that this is generally true, but my school is full of the children of Southern old money, for better or for worse, and John Grisham's daughter and George Steinbrenner's granddaughter both attend here, among other children of famous/prestigious parentage.</p></li>
<li><p>Getting Internships and jobs:
Can't really comment with authority on this one either, as I've never sought an internship due to a continuing professional relationship I have with a law firm in my hometown.</p></li>
<li><p>You are more like a number at a public schools that at a private school:
My personal experience differs from this statement. Most of my professors, excluding those in the large lecture classes, learned everyone's names by the second or third week of class...although I have to say that my Intro to Geology professor, an incredible man who helped develop the asteroid theory about the mass extinction that occurred 65 my ago, actually made a seating chart and managed to memorize the names of all 80 students in the lecture, immediately calling on everyone who raised his or her hand by name...extremely impressive to me as a student but admittedly very rare.</p></li>
<li><p>Private schools tend to give out better grades:
Seems true when I compare my experience to my Duke boyfriend's again. I have only had one course in which the final averages were curved up; he has only had one in which they were not.</p></li>
<li><p>Facilities:
Aside from the dorms on South Campus for the freshmen (affectionately referred to as "The Projects" by their residents, and truly, the resemblance is startling), our facilities are very good both in the grander elements and in the minutiae. Our computer labs are plentiful and feature free printing, the student union is a sight to see, and an impressive new dining hall was just opened and features a "sports bar" (no alcohol because alcohol cannot be sold on campus) and the second largest college convenience store in the country. However, I'd assume that public schools with less funding, alumni support, etc, cannot boast of these same amenities.</p></li>
<li><p>Public school budgets are more prone to yearly cuts:
Unfortunately true. Tuition skyrockets yearly here.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>10: Public schools don't have strong programs for learning disabled kids:
Cannot speak with authority on this one either. There is a writing center and a math center but I don't know exactly how else those with learning disabilities are accommodated.</p>
<p>11.Big Name faculty:
I know that one of the main complaints of the university administrators who are always lobbying the state legislature for tuition increases is that our lower tuition causes us to be unable to pay competitive salaries to top professors who ultimately leave us for other schools that can pay them more money. I don't know if this is a widespread problem for public schools but it certainly is for us and has contributed to our steady drop in the rankings over the past 20 years.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>You get closer student-faculty interaction with private schools than with public universities:
I don't make an effort to interact with my professors outside of class as much as I should, so I don't really know exactly how accesible they are. They all hold mandatory office hours though for those who need help and for those who simply want to stop by and chat.</p></li>
<li><p>You get more geographically diverse students at private schools.
Definitely true here. Our student body is legally mandated to be comprised of no more than 18% out of state students. There are many highly intelligent in state students, but in general, the gap between the out of staters and in staters is wide because of the competitiveness that this mandate causes (there are usually about 10,000 in state applicants and 17,000 out of state applicants for about 7,000 spaces offered for the freshman class...do the math).</p></li>
</ol>
<p>That's my personal experience and I don't claim it to represent anything more or less. Just wanted to add my $.02 to a subject that is near and dear to me.</p>
<p>"I'm just going to throw this hypothetical situation out there, if you were forced to go to the library everyday (assuming you had lots of caffiene and possibly adderall for my fellow ADDers) and study for 8 hours, I believe you'd become a pretty damn educated individual."</p>
<p>At a University library perhaps; not a general city library (barring NYC). Sure, you can learn things like cooking and read up on some history, but non-academic libraries only have so much depth of a subject. </p>
<p>"Major state schools tend to have more 'school spirit' "</p>
<p>I disagree. Private schools generally have more impressive alumni networks than publics and significantly higher alumni giving rates. Just look at the ivies, USC, and Notre Dame. Alumni giving rates to publics are horrible. Sure, Michigan, Tennessee, and UT may be able to pack their stadiums better than Harvard, but when it really comes down to it, who exhibits more school spirit - some schmoe who throws on his alma mater's sweater and tailgates on a Saturday at a football game? Or an alumnus who plays an active role in the local alumni chapter and gives back to the school?</p>
<p>Privates boast more of the latter.</p>
<p>I think it's a really good question why state school grads don't give nearly as much as private school grads. Does anyone know why? To me it says a lot about how much you appreciated your experience. What else is it saying unless private school grads just make a lot more money, but everyone claims that isn't true.</p>
<p>I was talking about the experience at school while you are in school. The alumni relations thing is hard to prove one way or the other. You can't compare giving rates because most state school grads stay in the state and pay taxes that support the school every year--they gave already. I can say that in total dollars the state schools are starting to blow away most privates. Last year Wisconsin took in around $460 Million Bucks in giving. Right behind Harvard and Stanford. The top 10 in fundraising is heavily populated with state schools. They are relatively new to the fundraising game but now that state funds are tight they are going after money with vigor. In the next 20 years you will see half the top 20 endowments being state schools.</p>