The Democratic Presidential Nomination 2020

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by New Era

Making stuff up? I guess the better discussion point would be to define rich. Because going to school is already a "rich kid's" privilege that most poor kids cannot even dream of. Economic segregation is a real problem in higher education and one that this issue resolves. Some stats that will make this very evident.

Median household income of University of Alabama students: $57,928 (only 17% of students are considered "low income" as defined by Pell Grants.)
Median household income of ASU students: $69,074 (28% of students are considered low income)
Median household income of Weber State students: $87,500 (only 18% of students come are considered low income)

Media household income of Columbia students: $150,900 (only 5.1% of students are considered low income)
Median household income of University of Virginia students: $155,500 (only 1.5% of students are considered low income)
Media household income of Harvard students: $168,800 (only 4.8% of students are considered low income)
Media household income of Yale students: $192,600 (only 2.1% of students are considered low income)

Statistics are easily manipulated.

Take out the median household incomes attributable to the (student) athletes and recalculate.

Or, even more appropriately, given the schools being compared, just look at the median household income of the students in the honors programs at the State schools and recalculate.

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by New Era

Education remains inaccessible for the poor, and all the stats and demographics support this claim.

You're assuming that more poor and working class people would pursue a college education if they could afford it. That's an unfounded assumption. It may seem strange from the vantage point of the educated middle-class, but not everyone wants a post-secondary education.

45 per cent of 18- to 29-year-olds in the U.S. strongly feel college is not necessary to get ahead.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/...y-to-get-ahead

The college-or-bust mentality is itself a North American middle-class value. Egalitarian countries like Germany recognize not everyone should (or is even capable of) attend university. They recognize people can make valuable contributions, and earn a good salary, in non-academic fields. Steering non-academic students towards trades and blue-collar work in high school will serve the poor and working class better than making college cheaper.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by New Era

Making stuff up? I guess the better discussion point would be to define rich. Because going to school is already a "rich kid's" privilege that most poor kids cannot even dream of. Economic segregation is a real problem in higher education and one that this issue resolves. Some stats that will make this very evident.

Median household income of University of Alabama students: $57,928 (only 17% of students are considered "low income" as defined by Pell Grants.)
Median household income of ASU students: $69,074 (28% of students are considered low income)
Median household income of Weber State students: $87,500 (only 18% of students come are considered low income)

Media household income of Columbia students: $150,900 (only 5.1% of students are considered low income)
Median household income of University of Virginia students: $155,500 (only 1.5% of students are considered low income)
Media household income of Harvard students: $168,800 (only 4.8% of students are considered low income)
Media household income of Yale students: $192,600 (only 2.1% of students are considered low income)

Education remains inaccessible for the poor, and all the stats and demographics support this claim.

What makes these stats even more sobering is the fact that less than 2% (less than 1% at the Ivy league schools) of students will actually transition between the poor to the rich. Education will better an individual's situation, but being born into a rich family is the only sure way of guaranteeing you're going to remain rich, and going to an Ivy League school all but carves it in stone.

Taking that same approach here's the largest community college districts in the country.

Median household income of Miami Dade students: $49,446
Median household income of Houston students: $55,501
Median household income of Maricopa students: $55,144

You can guess where the "poor kids" go to school.



Obviously it was, and no, Weber State does not have a law school.

UVA is a state school though and it probably has the worst income disparity in your list. It fits with the reputation that Charlottesville is filled with a bunch of rich NOVA kids going to UVA. UVA is slightly above average for public schools in Virginia in terms of tuition. It is probably considered the most prestigious school to go to in VA. If they made tuition free, I doubt it would move the needle much. Heck, it's generally inaccessible to students living in my upperish middle class suburb in Richmond where we have fairly renowned public high schools and it's not tuition that is even a factor to why it is inaccessible in our case.

Free tuition would further drive up admission requirements. You may be able to quota in some more lower income students, but it's going to make it that much tougher to get into public universities. The consequence is that more people will have to turn to private colleges. Sure, there are private colleges that are elite and the rich will get their kids into, but the vast majority of private colleges are generally easier to get into and provide a backstop option for those who are able and willing to spend the money. The impact of free tuition without a huge expansion of universities would be some marginal help for the poor, a lot of the middle class would be pushed out of public schools into private schools that will leave them in debt, and the rich will still have options.

[GirlySports]

BIG NEWS!

John Delaney is out!

His 0.1% probably goes to Biden.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You're assuming that more poor and working class people would pursue a college education if they could afford it. That's an unfounded assumption. It may seem strange from the vantage point of the educated middle-class, but not everyone wants a post-secondary education.

45 per cent of 18- to 29-year-olds in the U.S. strongly feel college is not necessary to get ahead.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/...y-to-get-ahead

The college-or-bust mentality is itself a North American middle-class value. Egalitarian countries like Germany recognize not everyone should (or is even capable of) attend university. They recognize people can make valuable contributions, and earn a good salary, in non-academic fields. Steering non-academic students towards trades and blue-collar work in high school will serve the poor and working class better than making college cheaper.

Countries like Germany steer students towards academic/non-academic paths based on their abilities, not on how much money their parents have. Which is the whole point of this exercise; to offer lower income families a chance to have their children succeed on their merits. There's a reason that countries like Finland, Denmark, Germany, Norway, etc. have the highest intergenerational social and economic mobility among developed nations while a country like the US has among the lowest. The barriers to success in the former countries are a student's aptitude and abilities; in the US it's primarily lack of money.

Granted, there are a million reasons why income inelasticity between generations is 3 times higher in the US than in those other countries, but a poor education system (primary, secondary, and tertiary) is one of the primary factors.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You're assuming that more poor and working class people would pursue a college education if they could afford it. That's an unfounded assumption. It may seem strange from the vantage point of the educated middle-class, but not everyone wants a post-secondary education.

45 per cent of 18- to 29-year-olds in the U.S. strongly feel college is not necessary to get ahead.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/...y-to-get-ahead

The college-or-bust mentality is itself a North American middle-class value. Egalitarian countries like Germany recognize not everyone should (or is even capable of) attend university. They recognize people can make valuable contributions, and earn a good salary, in non-academic fields. Steering non-academic students towards trades and blue-collar work in high school will serve the poor and working class better than making college cheaper.

Well this is easily the worst take so far in this thread. Fine work as usual, Cliff.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

Statistics are easily manipulated.

Take out the median household incomes attributable to the (student) athletes and recalculate.

Or, even more appropriately, given the schools being compared, just look at the median household income of the students in the honors programs at the State schools and recalculate.

So basically, eliminate everyone from the population that doesn't meet your criteria rather than work from the criteria that every single college and university is compelled to work from? And just so you're aware, those are the statistics that are reported back through for funding and accreditation, so the measures are consistent and reliable.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well this is easily the worst take so far in this thread. Fine work as usual, Cliff.

why? seems like a very sensible take to me

we still need carpenters, plumbers and other type jobs. we live in a society that looks down upon honest, hard working blue collar jobs that literally build the country and has fostered this notion that unless you go and spend 4 years in university and become a middle manager, you've failed in life

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Well this is easily the worst take so far in this thread. Fine work as usual, Cliff.

I get that you are are passionate about your socialist utopia and that's fine. You need to appreciate that not everyone sees that as the ideal and sees a lot of those policies as well meaning, but overly simplistic and can be fraught with pitfalls.

There's a very legitimate argument to be made that tuition cost is not the biggest barrier to the lower classes going to college. It is also worth considering whether it really is in societies best interest whether more people should go to college.

You can disagree with people's opinion on things, but it really detracts from the argument if you are going to attack the poster because they have a different idea on what is ideal than you do.

[peter12]

An interesting discussion here between two economists, Noah Smith and Bryan Caplan, over whether college is more of a signalling exercise than something which adds tangible benefit.

I tend to think that it is a bit of both.

https://www.econlib.org/archives/201...nal_sig_1.html

[peter12]

As a small addition to this interesting debate, I would love to see more liberal arts subjects taught more effectively in primary and secondary school. While not every student needs or even should study philosophy, literature, and art at the post-secondary level, it would be nice for all students to have real exposure to these wonderful things at some point in their lives.

I can't think of a better place than a public school for these things to be taught.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by stone hands

why? seems like a very sensible take to me

we still need carpenters, plumbers and other type jobs. we live in a society that looks down upon honest, hard working blue collar jobs that literally build the country and has fostered this notion that unless you go and spend 4 years in university and become a middle manager, you've failed in life

No one is saying that we don't need those types of jobs or that people who work blue-collar jobs are somehow less valuable than jobs requiring a college degree. It's right-wing virtue-signalling whenever those arguments are tossed out. We're saying that the class you're born into shouldn't dictate which careers you're able to choose from.

Originally Posted by nfotiu

I get that you are are passionate about your socialist utopia and that's fine. You need to appreciate that not everyone sees that as the ideal and sees a lot of those policies as well meaning, but overly simplistic and can be fraught with pitfalls.

You can disagree with people's opinion on things, but it really detracts from the argument if you are going to attack the poster because they have a different idea on what is ideal than you do.

I have no issue with people disagreeing with me. I have an issue with bad faith arguments, which Cliff has a history of instigating constantly on this board.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by rubecube

No one is saying that we don't need those types of jobs or that people who work blue-collar jobs are somehow less valuable than jobs requiring a college degree. We're saying that the class you're born into shouldn't dictate which careers you're able to choose from.



I have no issue with people disagreeing with me. I have an issue with bad faith debating, which Cliff has a history of engaging in constantly on this board.

What is your criteria for this accusation? He always comes across as fair, reasonable, and with plenty of sources.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

You're assuming that more poor and working class people would pursue a college education if they could afford it. That's an unfounded assumption. It may seem strange from the vantage point of the educated middle-class, but not everyone wants a post-secondary education.

45 per cent of 18- to 29-year-olds in the U.S. strongly feel college is not necessary to get ahead.

https://www.wgbh.org/news/education/...y-to-get-ahead

The college-or-bust mentality is itself a North American middle-class value. Egalitarian countries like Germany recognize not everyone should (or is even capable of) attend university. They recognize people can make valuable contributions, and earn a good salary, in non-academic fields. Steering non-academic students towards trades and blue-collar work in high school will serve the poor and working class better than making college cheaper.

Other silly things the majority of Americans believe.

https://coed.com/2010/01/24/the-10-m...eople-believe/

"60% of Americans believe in the story of Noah’s Ark, word by word."

"Around half of the people in the United States believe that God created earth somewhere between 6,000 and 10,000 years ago."

Originally Posted by stone hands

why? seems like a very sensible take to me

we still need carpenters, plumbers and other type jobs. we live in a society that looks down upon honest, hard working blue collar jobs that literally build the country and has fostered this notion that unless you go and spend 4 years in university and become a middle manager, you've failed in life

Of course its silly because no one is saying that everyone has to go to university or college and end up as a middle manager. The argument is that education needs to be free or as cost free as possible, and this includes trade and vocational schools. Trademen still need education on how to ply their craft. That should be covered as well.

[HockeyIlliterate]

Originally Posted by New Era

So basically, eliminate everyone from the population that doesn't meet your criteria rather than work from the criteria that every single college and university is compelled to work from? And just so you're aware, those are the statistics that are reported back through for funding and accreditation, so the measures are consistent and reliable.

No.

I’m saying compare like for like.

A student attending Yale or Columbia is more like a honors program student at, say, Alabama.

Your numbers are just meaningless digits when they fail to compare like for like.

[nfotiu]

Originally Posted by rubecube

No one is saying that we don't need those types of jobs or that people who work blue-collar jobs are somehow less valuable than jobs requiring a college degree. It's right-wing virtue-signalling whenever those arguments are tossed out. We're saying that the class you're born into shouldn't dictate which careers you're able to choose from.

The problem is that free tuition is probably not the magic bullet that solves that, and puts the burden of everyone's college education on people who may find success through means other than college.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by nfotiu

The problem is that free tuition is probably not the magic bullet that solves that, and puts the burden of everyone's college education on people who may find success through means other than college.

I mean this is analogous to saying we shouldn't have universal health care because it's not going to fix the underlying causes of poor health and puts the burden of unhealthy people's medical costs onto healthy people.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by HockeyIlliterate

A student attending Yale or Columbia is more like a honors program student at, say, Alabama.

George W. Bush would like to test that theory.

Part of the reason why some schools can attract better students is because they are private and have strict rules in place for accepting students. Public institutions are mandated to be a little more accepting in their student body. So that comes into play as well. But a big part of those elite schools, and being able to limit access, is because they have very rigid programs, limited programs, and the ability to place application limits through charging huge tuition and fees. This is what drives up those median incomes as it is very expensive to go to these schools and normally only the rich have access to those institutions.

[stone hands]

Originally Posted by rubecube

No one is saying that we don't need those types of jobs or that people who work blue-collar jobs are somehow less valuable than jobs requiring a college degree. It's right-wing virtue-signalling whenever those arguments are tossed out. We're saying that the class you're born into shouldn't dictate which careers you're able to choose from.

2 things

1) purely anecdotally, but as a consultant for a few years I have been a part of dozens of corporate companies and the general opinion on blue collar jobs by people with white collar jobs is that they're undesirable and beneath them - people who are plumbers are not valuable and they must be stupid because they dont have a desk job. this isnt an isolated case either, this is the sentiment of the vast majority of people I have come across in the corporate world

2) I agree the class you're born into shouldn't dictate what careers you can choose from, but I would say that if Timmy Jones has never gotten higher than 60% in any math class in his life, he should probably be steered towards something he might be good at instead of trying to square peg into round hole him into an engineering degree because its not his fault his parents were poor

[ResAlien]

This conversation reminds me of a right wing coworker I had who hated habitat for humanity because she believed the home in her area lowered her property value. “If you can’t afford to buy a home you shouldn’t be given one. They won’t keep it nice enough. Some people are just meant to live in apartments” she said. She was a crappy person.