Gifted Issues Discussion homepage Forums Learning Environments High School Classes May Be Advanced in Name Only

Although I agree with you in many ways, Val, there does continue to be a great deal of evidence that a BA vastly increases one's earning power. Of course, many underprepared students don't GET the BA, but no one starts off thinking they will drop out.

My feeling is that many problems stem from the fact that well-paid, secure maunfacturing jobs have basically vanished. I agree that not everyone is cut out for college, but realistically, there are now few jobs available where one can earn well without a degree.

Things may be different in the US but people in trades do VERY well financially here, or there is certainly the potential. My best friend just paid a plumber $25k for 3 days work, certainly he had costs to pay but we are both very confident he's running a very profitable business too!

Yes, that's it exactly. It's true that manufacturing jobs are moving overseas, but there are many skilled jobs in between manufacturing and white-collar jobs (which are also being shipped overseas). They include work for plumbers, electricians, entry-level technicians (e.g. glassware washing and care, etc.), auto mechanic, etc. etc.

I'm not convinced that the higher-earnings thing with a B.A. is always true (a highly skill plumber or carpenter will probably earn more than a mediocre sales guy). Plus, there is more to life than how much you earn. I kind of think that an economy with too many people who do their jobs just for money is going to have problems.
Val

If the same fraction of youths from all socioeconomic and racial backgrounds were "college material", it would be much easier politically to debunk the college-for-all delusion. That is not the case, however.

Standardized tests such as the SAT I (reasoning), SAT II (subject), ACT, and, A.P. can all help identify the youths who are "college material". The problem is that there is about a 1 standard deviation between whites and blacks on the SAT http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/2010-total-group-profile-report-cbs.pdf , similar to the 1 SD difference found on IQ tests. The difference is about 2/3 of an SD between whites and Hispanics. Research has found that standardized tests are not biased against non-Asian minorities in terms of predicting college grades. Discouraging youths will low test scores from going to college means discouraging a higher proportion of blacks and Hispanics than whites and Asians. Saying that very different fractions of various racial groups are "college material" is considered racist by many people, but I think it needs to be said. Then it should be acted upon but cutting off government aid for unqualified students.

A common rejoinder to the above argument is that achievement gaps reflect environmental differences, such as differences in school quality, but the differences are still large when students of different races going to the SAME school are compared or when adjustments for socioeconomic status are made. By the time students get to college, what matters is the existence of achievement gaps, not their origins.

Well, naturally, it's not *always* true. But I could cite many studies for you that show a very strong connection between holding a college degree and higher lifetime earnings, as a general rule.

I don't know the numbers on this, but I would guess that the number of jobs for plumbers, electricians, and skilled trades are absolutely dwarfed by the number of lost manufacturing jobs. Also, IMO, being a plumber, electrician, or mechanic requires above-average intelligence in at least some areas. I would hardly say these are obvious choices for someone with an IQ of 90. I'm pretty smart, but I suck at car repair.

Re: Bostonian's post...well...I have spent too much time here already today...

The non-college skilled labor jobs may require at least average intelligence -- an IQ of 100. What do the 150 million (at least) Americans with IQ < 100 do? The harsh reality is that they may have to take low-skilled jobs with commensurate wages.
Everyone is employable at some wage, so I favor eliminating or at least reducing the minimum wage.

Umm. The minimum wage is already below a living wage in many or nearly all places, so I'm not sure what you're advocating here (or are you just trolling, given the glib statement and lack of detail around why this is a good idea?). Are you saying that people with IQs less than 100 should work 80 hours a week and live 4 to a small apartment just so they can pay their rent? That people who suffer from too little income to feed themselves properly should accept their situations because of the circumstances of their births?

There is a huge difference between acknowledging that differences in talent exist and deciding that those who don't meet an arbitrary cutoff should be treated as though they're worthless (or nearly so, given that they'd get paid at least something).

Why is it that, among developed nations, this problem seems to affect mainly the US? Most people in, say, western Europe manage to earn living wages in spite of whatever their IQs might be. Those societies are all doing well and manage to have better schools, medical care, and infrastructure than we do. Our society's ruthlessness doesn't benefit us as a whole nation. Now that I think about it, it's possible that the everyone-must-attend-college idea could be, in part, a response to societal ruthlessness and an extreme me-first/who-cares-about-you attitude we have here in the US.

You make a lot of statements about IQ among races or abilities between genders, to the point where I've begun to see your arguments as being overly simplistic and lacking in thoughtful insight or creative extensions to someone else's ideas. I've read Real Education and The Bell Curve and think that both books were written carefully and documented carefully. But that doesn't make them the final word on the subjects they address. It also doesn't mean it's necessary to present the ideas in those books in every third message as though they're easy explanations for a complex question.

As an example of the fact that apparently simple statistics can be nuanced, Ultramarina made a really good counterpoint to one of your claims here and afterwards. I don't think you can argue that state tests don't test the right end of the bell curve, because the SAT doesn't either.

Val

Great point. I think you're quite right. People do see how hard it can be for low-income earners and feel bad about it to some extent, but rather than addressing it in some rather more logical large-scale way, their response is "You should go to college! That'll fix it!" (Or, "Start your own business! That'll fix it!") It's the whole American pull-yourself-up-by-your-bootstraps thing. What's always confused me about this whole argument is that there is no denying that SOMEbody has to pick the tomatoes, make the hamburgers, clerk the stores, and clean the hotels. If all these low-income, low-wage workers magically become college-educated entrepreneurs, who is going to do that work? Teenagers? There really aren't enough of them.

There is always going to be a working class. We NEED a working class. They should be paid a living wage, or we disrespect and ignore the basic fact of human variability, IMO.

Confuses correlation with causation, IMO.


Just as ridiculous as noting that neighborhoods and socioeconomic outcomes improve with home-ownership relative to non-homeowners. That doesn't mean that all of those socioeconomic ills are cured just by granting loans to people who otherwise don't qualify for mortgages. (As we've now seen, I sincerely hope.)

In other words, maybe fixing the problems that led them to be poorly qualified for mortgages might have been a better (real?) solution.

Same thing with college-for-all. Okay, higher earnings are associated with college degrees. But maybe that isn't causative as a relationship. Maybe it's correlative instead.



_____________________________________

Back to the original topic here-- I have been floored by this phenomenon in my DD's coursework. It's high VOLUME-- so students, teachers, and parents feel that their kids are "working REALLY HARD!!" The phenomonon there seems to be about window dressing and not about reality, however.

Or, in to steal a quote from Christmas Vacation:

(In reference to the expense and trouble of all of the-- nonfunctional-- Christmas lights)

Francis (Clark's MIL): Talk about p***ing your money away. I hope you kids see what a silly waste of resources this was.


Audrey Griswold: He worked really hard, Grandma.

Art (FIL): So do washing machines.

Maybe I'm just naturally flippant and irreverent, but I so often find myself looking at my DD's schoolwork and thinking... SERIOUSLY?? This is high school?? NO. WONDER. This explains so much about those poor students that were woefully unprepared for college chemistry. Er.. college anything, truth be told.

Washing machines. That's what schools are all about now. <nodding>

Yes! Yes!

Correlation vs. causation was once explained to me in a wonderful way (paraphrasing from someone, but the details are all correct):

Sociologists have observed that increased murder rates in the New York metro area are correlated with increased sales of ice cream.

Question: Does this mean that eating ice cream makes you more violent???

Answer: No, it's a correlation without causation. Both increases are due to increased temperatures/heat waves. When it gets hot, some people want to eat a cool snack. Some people (not necessarily the ice cream eaters) also become more easily agitated when they feel overheated.


Okay, I love that one. I'll store it in my mind next to the ice cream conundrum.