3 ms·

This sounds like an issue with the public elementary and secondary education systems more than anything else -- affirmative action can only do so much for those

by ihsw2 9y ago

This sounds like an issue with the public elementary and secondary education systems more than anything else -- affirmative action can only do so much for those that qualify, but if eligibility does not increase in lock step with population then there are some basic problems that need to be addressed. Perhaps college endowment funds[1] should invest in supporting elementary and secondary education systems rather than private equity. How many freshmen are children of first-generation immigrants? The percentage likely pales in comparison to children of second-generation immigrants as climbing the financial ladder is (generally speaking) a basic requirement to raising children than can attend college as well as having the capability to fund their attendance. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universities_in_the_United_States_by_endowment https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_colleges_and_universit...

jdavis703 9y ago
One of the big problems is that in the US school districts are highly local, so economically depressed neighborhoods have far fewer resources to educate children. The US really needs state-wide or metropolitan-wide public school systems that assign students by lottery (assuming that good schools are over-enrolled). This will do a lot to level the playing field, however it's far unlikely to happen for reasons of both class and race. So that leaves universities to level the playing field. If the US ever gets the K12 education system overhauled maybe can argue against this interventionism from universities, but otherwise how do we start fixing today's problems today?
AnthonyMouse 9y ago
The problem is it isn't primarily the schools, it's the whole environment. A poor student has no time to study because he's busy raising his little sister while his single mother is working two jobs. His neighbors at home try to sell him drugs or recruit him into a gang instead of suggesting that he join the lacrosse team with them. We keep focusing programs on the very bottom as if the solution is to get literally everyone in the 1st percentile up to the 5th, while ignoring that the 5th percentile is still miserable. What we ought to be doing is fighting the impediments for people at the bottom to break into the middle. Like, people sell drugs but not sandwiches because the amount of bureaucracy involved in operating a sandwich cart is higher than the margins on sandwiches. Meanwhile selling drugs is fully illegal but the margins are high enough to make up for it. We've inflated the price of real estate so artificially high by constraining supply that a) people have trouble affording a place to live, but also b) people have trouble affording a place to work -- you can't open a shop if you can't pay the rent. We keep all of the structural factors that cause their fathers to be in prison rather than in business and then find it shocking that the effects of losing parental income and involvement are more than nothing.
- ihsw2 9y ago
  Honestly I don't mind that drug dealers get the book thrown at them, play stupid games/win stupid prizes, furthermore the equivocating and rationalizing around drug dealing having great margins is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst. There's more to the situation than microeconomic theory and approaching it from a purely economic point of view is dangerous. If we're going to be serious about why fathers are in prison then it stands to reason that we focus on keeping families together, the vast majority of women that enter single motherhood fall into poverty and welfare. Not only that but they never get out of it and they have to endure mental illness (eg: depression, obesity, addiction) which further complicates family life. Telling these young women that they're better off alone, that they can find better relationship opportunities, and other pie-in-the-sky ideological claptrap is reckless and negligent. It is truer now more than ever that the traditional family unit is the best institution for ensuring a child's future is secure. No I'm not saying women should endure abusive relationships but for heaven's sake we have to be honest about the fact that they're better off settling down early than "finding themselves" which we all know is primarily promiscuity, alcoholism, and drug abuse.

by ihsw2 9y ago

jdavis703 9y ago

One of the big problems is that in the US school districts are highly local, so economically depressed neighborhoods have far fewer resources to educate children. The US really needs state-wide or metropolitan-wide public school systems that assign students by lottery (assuming that good schools are over-enrolled). This will do a lot to level the playing field, however it's far unlikely to happen for reasons of both class and race. So that leaves universities to level the playing field. If the US ever gets the K12 education system overhauled maybe can argue against this interventionism from universities, but otherwise how do we start fixing today's problems today?

AnthonyMouse 9y ago

The problem is it isn't primarily the schools, it's the whole environment. A poor student has no time to study because he's busy raising his little sister while his single mother is working two jobs. His neighbors at home try to sell him drugs or recruit him into a gang instead of suggesting that he join the lacrosse team with them. We keep focusing programs on the very bottom as if the solution is to get literally everyone in the 1st percentile up to the 5th, while ignoring that the 5th percentile is still miserable. What we ought to be doing is fighting the impediments for people at the bottom to break into the middle. Like, people sell drugs but not sandwiches because the amount of bureaucracy involved in operating a sandwich cart is higher than the margins on sandwiches. Meanwhile selling drugs is fully illegal but the margins are high enough to make up for it. We've inflated the price of real estate so artificially high by constraining supply that a) people have trouble affording a place to live, but also b) people have trouble affording a place to work -- you can't open a shop if you can't pay the rent. We keep all of the structural factors that cause their fathers to be in prison rather than in business and then find it shocking that the effects of losing parental income and involvement are more than nothing.

ihsw2 9y ago
Honestly I don't mind that drug dealers get the book thrown at them, play stupid games/win stupid prizes, furthermore the equivocating and rationalizing around drug dealing having great margins is disingenuous at best and malicious at worst. There's more to the situation than microeconomic theory and approaching it from a purely economic point of view is dangerous. If we're going to be serious about why fathers are in prison then it stands to reason that we focus on keeping families together, the vast majority of women that enter single motherhood fall into poverty and welfare. Not only that but they never get out of it and they have to endure mental illness (eg: depression, obesity, addiction) which further complicates family life. Telling these young women that they're better off alone, that they can find better relationship opportunities, and other pie-in-the-sky ideological claptrap is reckless and negligent. It is truer now more than ever that the traditional family unit is the best institution for ensuring a child's future is secure. No I'm not saying women should endure abusive relationships but for heaven's sake we have to be honest about the fact that they're better off settling down early than "finding themselves" which we all know is primarily promiscuity, alcoholism, and drug abuse.