5 ms·

Is that people from rural areas or just people in rural areas? Because less people in higher education in rural areas shouldn't suprise anyone. People generall

by lugg 9y ago

Is that people from rural areas or just people in rural areas? Because less people in higher education in rural areas shouldn't suprise anyone. People generally move or commute to cities for higher education and that isn't really news. So depending what those numbers really mean could be significant.

hateduser2 9y ago
Whether or not it’s surprising is kind of besides the point no? It’s still a problem and to get it fixed the first step is to draw attention to it.
- askmeaqwestion 9y ago
  The other poster is saying that the clarification is significant because it would discount people that move from rural areas to the city. If you're saying that you'd like the higher education to move TO the rural areas, then I see your point. But I think you may have just misread.
- bduerst 9y ago
  I think you missed the point of their question. The problem isn't that there aren't enough universities in rural locations, which is what that stat could be representing.
- lugg 9y ago
  What's the problem? I guess you could argue that in today's world you shouldn't have to move to a city to get a higher education. But the truth is, even with improved remote offerings students will still flock to larger cities for their higher education. The people remaining either don't want, need, or can achieve higher education and I don't see any problems with that. This all assumes the stat is talking about people in rural areas vs people from rural areas. I would be concerned if people from rural areas had largely less percentage points of higher education, but only if it was a very large gap. Community and local bias toward lesser rates of higher education is expected. Both from the "my dad was a farmer, I'm a farmer too" stereotype and also the fact that income disparity/inequality between city living and rural living would result in a substantial gap when education costs are the same across the board. That last point is something I have a problem with but honestly the attitude towards education spending in USA from the majority is very one sided. (My taxes shouldn't fund your fancy degree when I work in a factory - regardless of societal benefit I constantly receive.)
forapurpose 9y ago
> People generally move or commute to cities for higher education I'm not sure that's true. My impression is that most universities are in small towns. In the U.S., that describes many large state universities. I would guess that the cost of land in cities is a big reason. EDIT: With many large universities enrolling tens of thousands of students, plus employing faculty and staff and supporting all the third parties (from caterers to construction to police to temp agencies), their towns can't be too tiny.
- askmeaqwestion 9y ago
  If your definition of small town is relative to large urban hubs, sure. But, I wouldn't say many large state universities are in truly rural locations. EDIT: To clarify, of course there are universities in rural areas. But I wouldn't generalize that a significant amount are in areas with a couple thousand residents, this is simply not the case. These are the kids being left behind, those whose entire lives revolve around small areas. They're much harder to pull away to the "big city", and with good reason.
- hermitdev 9y ago
  It depends on where you are. I think your impression that most universities are in small towns is an apt description of midwestern universities (i.e. states like Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, etc). It doesn't hold for either the west or east coast, really. See U of Washington, U of Oregon, Oregon State, state schools of California, state schools of New York, etc, etc. Sure, they might be in smaller cities, but larger cities than most states even have. I grew up in rural Montana and wanted to study Electrical & Computer Engineering. I didn't really have a choice to stay in state (and get my degrees from a quality program). I could have studied at University of Montana, but that would have left me with a degree that, for what I wanted to do, would have been worthless. Sure, I could have made the 30-45 minute commute and gotten a cheap degree, but the result would have been a degree I didn't want. For an in-state state-school engineering degree, I'd have had to at a minimum gone to Montana State University (5+ hours from my parents' house). MSU doesn't have much of a EE/CPE department, but does have some good engineering programs (like chemical). I had to go to Chicago to find the program I wanted.

by lugg 9y ago

hateduser2 9y ago

Whether or not it’s surprising is kind of besides the point no? It’s still a problem and to get it fixed the first step is to draw attention to it.

askmeaqwestion 9y ago
The other poster is saying that the clarification is significant because it would discount people that move from rural areas to the city. If you're saying that you'd like the higher education to move TO the rural areas, then I see your point. But I think you may have just misread.
bduerst 9y ago
I think you missed the point of their question. The problem isn't that there aren't enough universities in rural locations, which is what that stat could be representing.
lugg 9y ago
What's the problem? I guess you could argue that in today's world you shouldn't have to move to a city to get a higher education. But the truth is, even with improved remote offerings students will still flock to larger cities for their higher education. The people remaining either don't want, need, or can achieve higher education and I don't see any problems with that. This all assumes the stat is talking about people in rural areas vs people from rural areas. I would be concerned if people from rural areas had largely less percentage points of higher education, but only if it was a very large gap. Community and local bias toward lesser rates of higher education is expected. Both from the "my dad was a farmer, I'm a farmer too" stereotype and also the fact that income disparity/inequality between city living and rural living would result in a substantial gap when education costs are the same across the board. That last point is something I have a problem with but honestly the attitude towards education spending in USA from the majority is very one sided. (My taxes shouldn't fund your fancy degree when I work in a factory - regardless of societal benefit I constantly receive.)

forapurpose 9y ago

> People generally move or commute to cities for higher education I'm not sure that's true. My impression is that most universities are in small towns. In the U.S., that describes many large state universities. I would guess that the cost of land in cities is a big reason. EDIT: With many large universities enrolling tens of thousands of students, plus employing faculty and staff and supporting all the third parties (from caterers to construction to police to temp agencies), their towns can't be too tiny.

askmeaqwestion 9y ago
If your definition of small town is relative to large urban hubs, sure. But, I wouldn't say many large state universities are in truly rural locations. EDIT: To clarify, of course there are universities in rural areas. But I wouldn't generalize that a significant amount are in areas with a couple thousand residents, this is simply not the case. These are the kids being left behind, those whose entire lives revolve around small areas. They're much harder to pull away to the "big city", and with good reason.
hermitdev 9y ago
It depends on where you are. I think your impression that most universities are in small towns is an apt description of midwestern universities (i.e. states like Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, etc). It doesn't hold for either the west or east coast, really. See U of Washington, U of Oregon, Oregon State, state schools of California, state schools of New York, etc, etc. Sure, they might be in smaller cities, but larger cities than most states even have. I grew up in rural Montana and wanted to study Electrical & Computer Engineering. I didn't really have a choice to stay in state (and get my degrees from a quality program). I could have studied at University of Montana, but that would have left me with a degree that, for what I wanted to do, would have been worthless. Sure, I could have made the 30-45 minute commute and gotten a cheap degree, but the result would have been a degree I didn't want. For an in-state state-school engineering degree, I'd have had to at a minimum gone to Montana State University (5+ hours from my parents' house). MSU doesn't have much of a EE/CPE department, but does have some good engineering programs (like chemical). I had to go to Chicago to find the program I wanted.