<a href=“http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560[/url]”>http://www.economist.com/world/na/displayStory.cfm?story_id=3518560</a>
Interesting read. Especially towards the end where the university stuff is.
<p>Thanks for posting.
For those too lazy to click, here's an excerpt:</p>
<p>"There is also growing evidence that America is less socially mobile than many other rich countries. Mr Solon finds that the correlation between the incomes of fathers and sons is higher in the United States than in Germany, Sweden, Finland or Canada.... But Americans are clearly mistaken if they believe they live in the world's most mobile society. </p>
<p>The education system is increasingly stratified by social class, and poor children have a double disadvantage. They attend schools with fewer resources than those of their richer contemporaries (school finances are largely determined by local property taxes). And they have to deal with the legacy of what Michael Barone, a conservative commentator, has labelled soft America. Soft America is allergic to introducing accountability and measurement in education...</p>
<p>America's great universities are increasingly reinforcing rather than reducing these educational inequalities. Poorer students are at a huge disadvantage, both when they try to get in and, if they are successful, in their ability to make the most of what is on offer. This disadvantage is most marked in the elite colleges that hold the keys to the best jobs. Three-quarters of the students at the country's top 146 colleges come from the richest socio-economic fourth, compared with just 3% who come from the poorest fourth...."</p>
<p>"the median family income at Harvard, for example, is $150,000"</p>
<p>yikes, lol</p>
<p>I've always enjoyed the Economist and its view of the world, tempered such that it is.... But, I would argue against the point that "elite colleges hold the keys to the best jobs...." The Economist's bias of 'Oxbridge', which IS a key factor in british connections, wealth and power, is being applied to Harvard. There are 2500 colleges in the US, and most offer suberb educations and provide "keys" to great jobs. Moreover, we have many great public universities that provide "keys" to great jobs. With over 300 million people, the top 146 colleges (a strange cutoff, btw, bcos I assume #147 must dilute his data), don't produce enough grads to populate business.</p>
<p>Instead of comparing the 3% of kids from the lower economic quartile at the top schools, a better yardstick is how many kids in that lower quartile are even prepared for college due to "soft america."</p>
<p>Instead of comparing the 3% of kids from the lower economic quartile at the top schools, a better yardstick is how many kids in that lower quartile are even prepared for college due to "soft america."</p>
<p>true dat</p>
<p>As for his quote "elite colleges hold the keys to the best jobs....", I do agree that coming out of a school such as Harvard gives you a much better head start in your career, but after that, its pretty much up to you to make it big</p>
<p>But the school will influence how you yourself turn out.</p>
<p>That's why we want to go to the best schools--to turn out the best. The name of the school itself might turn some heads and get someone a headstart, but the name isn't the only thing we aim for. The education you receive from a top-notch school will have a part in how you succeed, not the words on the diploma. </p>
<p>So, even if it is "up to you to make it big" after school, success will still heavily depend on how well trained and well educated your university made you, which depends on how good your university was, and how hard you worked to take advantage of it during your years.</p>
<p>Add in another factor--other innate traits. The hill is pretty steep for poor people. But think: It's almost impossible to scale for the not-so-intelligent or not-so-talented. If you're rich and brilliant, you'll dominate. If you're poor yet brilliant, you can succeed and get out of the rut. If you're poor and stupid at the same time, you're screwed, NO MATTER HOW HARD YOU WORK. Woohoo.</p>
<p>It's all about inheriting or being gifted. Either way, there's no way to earn or influence either of them. Sucks huh? You get what you're born with.</p>
<p>Thomaschau"</p>
<p>by the City, I assume you mean the one by the Bay, :)</p>
<p>"how well educated your university made you...." </p>
<p>Au contraire - any U definitely does not "make" you educated. You educate yourself, with the help of the school. If someone works extremely hard, they can become "educated" at Podunk state college. YOU succeed on your OWN effort. As an academic research institution, H will not spoon-feed you. On the other hand, with family money (read Kennedy & Bush), you can cruise thru school. Do you really believe that Teddy would not be a senator if he went to BC instead of H? Heck he could have gone to any college anywhere and family money would get him where he wants to go. More importantly, the article fails to mention that Kerry could not get into Harvard Law (oh, the shame, the shame). Will a H degree get you a few more interviews outta college, of course, particularly since 90% graduate with honors. But, not for the reason you think. H will get you more interviews bcos employers know how difficult it is to get into H, so the class of students are of higher quality, on average, then Podunk U. Essentially, the top schools provide a triage process so employers don't have to look that hard for quality recruits. Larry Ellison, CEO Cisco, said that he only recruited from top schools, regardless of major, because he knew that top schools had smart kids. But, his recruiters also went to Berkeley, Austin, Ann Arbor, Chapel Hill, and Charlottesville, in addition to Palo Alto and Cambridge.</p>
<p>Steven Spielberg went to Long Beach State. Fred Smith, founder of FedEx, went to Yale Business school where he received a "C" on his concept of air freight -- yeah, great education they gave him!</p>
<p>From what I've seen in the business field is that, people who attend top business schools seem to have "good" jobs, nothing that will wow you, but a "good" paying job. I believe that you don't need to go to a top university to become successful. If you want to be really rich then become an entrepreneur, where your the one that controls your pay. I don't think a university can really tell you how to become a successful entrepreneur. I think those are just skills you happen to develop through out life. So if you want a "great" job, you don't need to attend a top university, though it doesn't hurt.</p>
<p>kinglin:</p>
<p>statistically, the observation........I would suggest that these folks would rise to good paying jobs anyway, bcos they are industrious. The CFO of Disney went to Cal State Northridge.</p>
<p>I think that there is something else that we're not taking into account. Many believe that it is not only the education that you may be able to obtain at a top institution, but also the other people that you meet while there. By being around a larger proportion of more intelligent students there is more of a push to do well. I believe that is the reasoning behind honors colleges at many state universities.</p>
<p>I have to agree with the previous post. In fact, I'm very hesitant to attend the honors program at my state university. The people I know that are going to the honors college and the people I know that are going to an Ivy or someplace similar... well, there's definitely a wide gulf between the two groups in terms of not just intelligence but also the desire to actually learn and think. The honors collegers tend to adhere to the "go to college and get a good job" philopsophy.</p>
<p>Coamherst:</p>
<p>when you look at the sheer class size of Berkely, Texas, Mich, UVa, Chapel Hill, and run the numbers, you'll find that there are as many "intelligent students" (your term) in absolute numbers than there is in a class at H. .</p>
<p>Sure, at the very top state universities. Not everybody has access to one of those in-state.</p>
<p>The in-states residents certainly do have access.</p>
<p>This is why the "No Child Left Behind" act is not what our country needs. The costs of private universities is rising uncontrollably, making it unrealistically unaffordable for some, even with the financial aid given. As a result, public university costs are rising as well - and it's getting more competitive.</p>
<p>The real problem is that in poorer neighbourhoods, there isn't that push to do well and to continue education. It is a natural phenomenon that children strive to be something like their parents. If their parents got by on an income of $20,000 a year, then they figure that's alright for them as well.</p>
<p>The "No Child Left Behind" act is silly because sometimes, there are children that just aren't ready to be pushed ahead. The major changes in education need to be made by encouraging further education, making education more affordable.</p>