Tag Archives: Income Inequity

3rd world America: The economy affects the society of the future

22 Nov

One of the major contributors to poverty in third world nations is limited access to education opportunities. Without continued sustained investment in education in this country, we are the next third world country. All over the country plans are being floated to cut back the school year or eliminate programs which help the most disadvantaged. Alexander Eichler reports in the Huffington Post article, Middle-Class Jobs Disappearing As Workforce Shifts To High-Skill, Low-Skill: Study:

America is increasingly becoming a place of high- and low-skill jobs, with less room available for a middle class.

A new report from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York shows that over the past 30 years, the U.S. workforce has shifted toward high-paying jobs that require a great deal of education — jobs in the legal, engineering or technology industries, for example — and toward low-paying jobs that require little schooling, like food preparation, maintenance and personal care.

What haven’t fared so well are the industries in the middle, like sales, teaching, construction, repair, entertainment, transportation and business — the ones where a majority of Americans end up working.

In 1980, these middle-level jobs accounted for 75 percent of the workforce. By 2009, that number had fallen to 68 percent. In the same span of time, low- and high-skill jobs had each grown as a percentage of the workforce.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/middle-class-jobs_n_1105502.html?ref=email_share

In order to support family creation and family preservation, there must be liveable wage jobs. We, as a society, must support the concept of:

A healthy child in a healthy family who attends a healthy school in a healthy neighborhood ©

Citation:

Job Polarization in the United States: A Widening Gap and Shrinking Middle by Jaison R. Abel

and Richard Deitz, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, November 21, 2011.

http://libertystreeteconomics.newyorkfed.org/2011/11/job-polarization-in-the-united-states-a-widening-gap-and-shrinking-middle.html

Huffington Post reprints a report about the effect of the income gap and learning from California Ed Source in the article, ‘Income Achievement Gap’ Almost Double Black-White Performance Gap, Report Shows:

In a dramatic illustration of the impact of income inequality on how children do in school, the achievement gap between children from high and low income families is far higher than the achievement gap between black and white students, a pathbreaking research report from Stanford University has shown.



The report by Sean Reardon, a Stanford professor of education and sociology, shows that the income achievement gap–the difference in the average standardized scores between children from families at the 10th percentile of income distribution and children at the 90th percentile–is now “nearly twice as large as the black-white achievement gap.”

A half century ago, the situation was just the reverse. The black-white gap was one and a half times as large as the income achievement gap as defined in the report, Reardon found….

.Reardon’s report for the first time looks at the achievement gap between rich and poor children, how that gap compares to the achievement gap between black and white children, and how the gap has evolved over time.

Another notable finding was that the income achievement gap doesn’t narrow, or widen, during the entire time children are in school. To Reardon, this suggests that “a big part of the processes that are responsible for this are things that happen in early childhood before kids get into kindergarten….”

Reardon’s report for the first time looks at the achievement gap between rich and poor children, how that gap compares to the achievement gap between black and white children, and how the gap has evolved over time.

Another notable finding was that the income achievement gap doesn’t narrow, or widen, during the entire time children are in school. To Reardon, this suggests that “a big part of the processes that are responsible for this are things that happen in early childhood before kids get into kindergarten.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/11/21/income-achievement-gap-al_n_1105783.html?ref=email_share

See, Race, class, and education in America , https://drwilda.wordpress.com/2011/11/07/race-class-and-education-in-america/

Citation:

Reardon’s report titled “The Widening Achievement Gap Between the Rich and the Poor: New Evidence and Possible Explanations” was published in September 2011 in Whither Opportunity? Rising Inequality, Schools, and Children’s Life Chances, edited by Greg Duncan and Richard Murnane  (Russell Sage Foundation).

So what future have the Goldman Sucks, cash sluts, and credit crunch weasels along with we don’t care, we don’t have to Washington Georgetown and Chevy Chase set – you know, the the “masters of the universe” left those on a race to get through college? Lila Shapiro has the excellent post, Trading Down: Laid-Off Americans Taking Pay Cuts and Inceasingly Kissing Their Old Lives Goodbye at Huffington Post:

This government, both parties, has failed to promote the kind of economic development AND policy which creates liveable wage jobs. That is why Mc Donalds is popular for more than its dollar menu. They are hiring people.

This economy must focus on job creation and job retention and yes, hope. Both for those racing through college and those who have paid their education and training dues. “You deserve a break today at Mc Donalds,” the only employer who seems to be hiring.

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©

The 1% is maintaining the status quo: Colleges return to early admissions

22 Nov

There is an “arms race” in education from granting more advanced degrees to colleges vying for top undergraduate students. One weapon to attract top students has been the admissions policy of “early admission.” There is a difference between “early admission” and “early decision” according to the College Board:

Early decision plans are binding—a student who is accepted as an ED applicant must attend the college. Early action plans are nonbinding—students receive an early response to their application but do not have to commit to the college until the normal reply date of May 1. Counselors need to make sure that students understand this key distinction between the two plans: binding is binding.

There are reasons why colleges prefer the process and why for a time top institutions like Harvard and Princeton abandoned the process for a time.

The Daily Princetonian described some of the issues involving the “early admission” process in the September 18th, 2006 article, An unfair process: Princeton should follow Harvard in dropping the early admission option:

Perhaps the biggest problem with the early admissions process is that it tends to favor wealthier students at elite high schools. Many schools — Princeton included — tend to accept a higher percentage of students who apply early. Yet, students in need of financial aid have a huge disincentive to apply early because it prevents them from comparing financial aid and scholarship options. At the same time, students from schools with more established college advising programs are given a head start in applying for admissions and are often more aware of early admission programs to begin with. As interim Harvard president Derek Bok put it, early decision programs tend to “advantage the advantaged.”

Early admission programs also hurt students because they encourage increased gamesmanship in the college admission process. High schools seniors are encouraged to choose the most selective school on their list of schools to apply to, instead of taking the time to consider which schools are really their best matches.

http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/2006/09/18/15809/

Princeton did drop “early admission” for a time.

There are about 400 colleges which offer early admission The College Board also has an excellent time line for those who may be seeking early admission. Inside Higher Education has an article about the Harvard and Princeton decision to return to early admission. In, Surrender to Early Admissions Scott Jaschik writes:

In the fall of 2006, first Harvard University, then Princeton University, and then the University of Virginia announced that they would end programs in which applicants applied earlier than the regular deadline — and also found out months early whether they had been admitted. With those decisions by elite institutions, the many critics of early admissions policies thought that they had momentum to end practices that many saw as creating needless anxiety and favoring wealthy applicants.

That momentum never materialized — and other colleges and universities did not abandon their early programs….

Many colleges also reported that their early applicants were more likely than those in the regular pool to be white, wealthy and from good high schools. That’s not surprising, of course, since those who would need to compare financial aid packages from different colleges would be hesitant to pledge to enroll at one college before seeing all available aid packages. A series of articles — most notably a 2001 piece by James Fallows in The Atlantic Monthly — led to much hand-wringing at admissions gatherings about early admissions being out of control.

Even as educators talked about all of the downsides of early admissions, applicants from good high schools continued to apply early in greater and greater numbers — until Harvard and then others announced their shifts. In restoring early action, both Harvard and Princeton stressed that they believed they could offer an early option without placing any groups of students at a disadvantage.

See, Harvard and Princeton Restore Early Admission

Eric Hoover is reporting in the Chronicle of Higher Education article, The Flock of Early Birds Keeps Growing about the return of prestige colleges to “early admission.”

In 2007, Georgetown University’s admissions staff expected a flood, and it got one. The university received 6,000 early-admission applications, a 31-percent increase from the previous year.

The rise was striking, but not shocking. After all, three of Georgetown’s high-profile competitors—Harvard and Princeton Universities, and the University of Virginia—had eliminated their early-admission programs that year. Scores of eager, high-achieving students apparently jumped into Georgetown’s nonbinding “early-action” pool instead. More and more applications came each year after that, climbing to 6,658 in 2010.

But this fall would be different. At least that’s what Charles A. Deacon predicted after Harvard, Princeton, and Virginia reinstated early-admission programs this year. The two Ivy League universities adopted restrictive early-action policies that bar applicants from applying early to other private colleges. So Mr. Deacon, Georgetown’s dean of admissions, suspected that his university would see early-action applications drop by as much as 30 percent.

That didn’t happen. Georgetown’s final tally was 6,750 applications, a handful more than last year. “The question is, Why hasn’t the same change reversing the increase of four years ago occurred?” Mr. Deacon says. “It just becomes ever less predictable.”

Another early-admission season is winding down, and this one has a back-to-the-future vibe. The same three institutions that had won praise for abandoning their early-admission programs became symbols of application-saturation this fall. Princeton received 3,547 early applications—nearly three times the number of seats in its freshman class. Virginia, which has a nonrestrictive early-action program like Georgetown, received 11,417 early applications; that’s about 9,000 more than the university saw back in 2007, when it had a binding early-decision program. As of Friday afternoon, Harvard had yet to announce its total, but it’s safe to guess that the number is gigantic…

http://chronicle.com/blogs/headcount/the-flock-of-early-birds-keeps-growing/29334?sid=pm&utm_source=pm&utm_medium=en

CBS. News has early admission statistics in the article, Early Decision Applications Are Soaring: Here’s Why by Lynn O’Shaughnessy.

2011-2012 Early Decision Statistics

Percentage increase or decrease in early decision applications from last year:

  • Amherst College -5%
  • Bates College 4%
  • Brown University -3%
  • Bowdoin College 10%
  • Bucknell College 30%
  • Columbia University 8%
  • Dartmouth College 12%
  • Dickinson College 15%
  • Duke University 14%
  • Elon University -15%
  • George Washington U. 19%
  • Haverford College 14%
  • Johns Hopkins U. 14%
  • Lehigh University 14%
  • Middlebury College < 1%
  • Northwestern U. 26%
  • U. of Pennsylvania 18%
  • Pomona College <1%
  • U. of Rochester 0%
  • Sarah Lawrence 15%
  • Vanderbilt U. 30%
  • Virginia Tech <1%
  • Williams College 1%

2011-2012 Early Action Statistics

Percentage increase or decrease in early action applications from last year:

  • University of Chicago 18.5%
  • Emerson College 11%
  • Fordham University 8%
  • MIT 14%
  • Santa Clara U. 27%
  • Villanova U. 25%
  • Boston College 7%
  • Stanford U. 7%
  • Yale University < 1%

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505145_162-37243644/early-decision-applications-are-soaring-heres-why/

Early admission” seems to be one element of the growing income inequality in America.

Resources:

Harvard, Princeton return to early admission by Daniel de Vise http://voices.washingtonpost.com/college-inc/2011/02/harvard_returns_to_early_actio.html

The College Board’s Early Decision & Early Action The benefits and drawbacks of applying early http://professionals.collegeboard.com/portal/site/Professionals/menuitem.b6b1a9bc0c5615493883234011a161ca/?vgnextoid=eb6ccf9a10494110vcm-02000000aaa514acRCRD&vgnextchannel=7c72247eb2814110VgnVCM200000121a16acRCRD&vgnextfmt=print

Debating Legacy Admissions at Yale, and Elsewhere by Jenny Anderson http://thechoice.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/29/legacy-2/

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©


3rd world America: College increasingly out of reach

27 Oct

Moi really doesn’t know what to make of the idea of privatizing state universities.  In the recent past, government had the goal of raising the standard of living and producing the economic conditions that fostered livable wage jobs. The goal of most politicians was to create the conditions that promoted and fostered a strong middle class. Particularly, after WWII and the Korean War, with the G.I Bill, one part of that equation was the wide availability of a college education. This push produced an educated workforce and a college education was within reach, no matter one’s class or social status. This educated workforce helped drive this country’s prosperity. Now, have we lost the goal of providing educational opportunity the widest number of people possible, no matter their class or social status? This question causes moi to wonder about privatizing state universities.

Sam Dillion was writing about the prospect of privatizing public universities in the New York Times in 2005. See, At Public Universities, Warnings of Privatization In 2004, William Symonds wrote an opinion piece in Business Week about the role of public universities 

Justin Pope, AP Education Writer details just how fast college costs are rising all over the country in the article, College prices up again as states slash budgets:

Average in-state tuition and fees at four-year public colleges rose an additional $631 this fall, or 8.3 percent, compared with a year ago.

Nationally, the cost of a full credit load has passed $8,000, an all-time high. Throw in room and board, and the average list price for a state school now runs more than $17,000 a year, according to the twin annual reports on college costs and student aid published Wednesday by the College Board.

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2097835,00.html

Prospective students and families will not only have to worry about getting into college, but finding a way to pay for college.

Beckie Supiano and Elyse Ashburn have written With New Lists, Federal Government Moves to Help Consumers and Prod Colleges to Limit Price Increases in the Chronicle of Higher Education about the Department of Education’s new site about college costs. The College Affordability and Transparency Center is useful for students who are applying to college.

More people are switching careers several times during their working career and that means that they must be retrained. Many students cannot afford a traditional four year college either in terms of cost or time spent away from home. Community colleges have always offered these students educational opportunity. KCBS radio in California has a report of the push by legislators to have community colleges in California offer four year degrees. In Community Colleges Pushed to Offer Four Year Degrees Melissa Culross reports….

There are two issues when community colleges offer four year degrees and they are increasing access to educational opportunities and the realities of budgetary constraints. Each college will have to decide whether offering four year degrees fit within the college mission and the needs of the individual community. See, Robert Franco’s The Civic Role of Community Colleges: Preparing Students for the Work of Democracy

Daniel de Vise has a great article in the Washington Post, 25 Ways to Reduce the Cost of College which reports online information from the Center for College Affordability and Productivity.    

The question lawmakers should be asking themselves is why society developed public universities and do those reasons still exist? In the rush to get past this moment in time lawmakers may be destroying the very economic engine, which would drive this country out of the economic famine that currently exists. While tuition is increased for students, the pay of college administrators remains hefty. Administrators are in effect pigs at the trough and should come under some scrutiny. Of course, if the current public universities were privatized, we wouldn’t have to worry about pigs still at the trough or would we? In a totally privatized university environment, administrators could be paid what the market will allow or the regents can go wink, wink at. Wait, wasn’t unfettered pay one element in the U.S. financial meltdown?

Dr. Wilda says this about that ©