4 ms·

I feel like the provided chart doesn't quite match up well with the presented narrative. Granted it's hard to evaluate since they neglect to define what the bar

I feel like the provided chart doesn't quite match up well with the presented narrative. Granted it's hard to evaluate since they neglect to define what the bar for rich and poor is, however, assuming by rich and poor they mean born in the 1st and 5th quartiles by income, the chart would imply over 80% of 1st quartile dropouts fall at least one income quartile and corresponding graduating college (note there's no stratification as to what kind of college, ie whether predatory for profit schools are included, breakdowns by tier of university, etc) results in income mobility (measured by an increase of one or more income quintiles) for over 80% of 5th quartile students. Granted, I think a better state would be closer to 100% of college graduates are able to live comfortable lives, but I think the data doesn't point to the doom and gloom of insurmountable educational advantage the author seems to want to present.

randomdata 10y ago
> the chart would imply over 80% of 1st quartile dropouts fall at least one income quartile While I agree that stronger definitions are necessary, that implies that all high school dropouts from rich families were personally making 1st quintile incomes at some point before the age of 40. That seems highly unlikely to me. Even children of rich families are usually expected to work and find a way to make their own income (even if that comes through family connections), not have their parents income flow to them unimpeded and reclaimed as their own income. There is no reason to believe that these children of rich families were ever making as much as their parents at any point in time, save the 14% that did accomplish it. As such, for all intents and purposes, the chart shows what two groups who both effectively started with zero income were able to achieve by the age of 40. The interesting thing is that there isn't much variance. Yes, the poor college graduates fared slightly better – but only slightly. That is in stark contrast to the popular narrative that high school dropouts are doomed to failure, forever stuck working for minimum wage, if they are lucky and that getting a degree will magically save you from being poor.

randomdata 10y ago

> the chart would imply over 80% of 1st quartile dropouts fall at least one income quartile While I agree that stronger definitions are necessary, that implies that all high school dropouts from rich families were personally making 1st quintile incomes at some point before the age of 40. That seems highly unlikely to me. Even children of rich families are usually expected to work and find a way to make their own income (even if that comes through family connections), not have their parents income flow to them unimpeded and reclaimed as their own income. There is no reason to believe that these children of rich families were ever making as much as their parents at any point in time, save the 14% that did accomplish it. As such, for all intents and purposes, the chart shows what two groups who both effectively started with zero income were able to achieve by the age of 40. The interesting thing is that there isn't much variance. Yes, the poor college graduates fared slightly better – but only slightly. That is in stark contrast to the popular narrative that high school dropouts are doomed to failure, forever stuck working for minimum wage, if they are lucky and that getting a degree will magically save you from being poor.