3 ms·
> Also there should be a high correlation between kids being college-material and parents being college-material. Whether you believe in nature (genetics) or nu
by thethethethe 4y ago
> Also there should be a high correlation between kids being college-material and parents being college-material. Whether you believe in nature (genetics) or nurture (good parenting, high standards, role model, access to education, etc), or a mix of both, either way, you should not expect the % of college students from graduate families to match the % of graduate families in the country. So not sure what point the article makes
Just because something can easily be explained using logic doesn't mean that it's outcomes can't be negative. Perhaps this indicates that our society is further stratifying into different classes and upward mobility is being reduced for a portion of the population which I think most people would agree is a bad thing
- everdrive 4y agoI'm not sure it suggests that society is stratifying, though. People didn't go to college nearly so much prior to the 70s. Once college became ubiquitous, I would expect that the number of people who's parents went to college could have to go up no matter what. ie, there is a smaller and smaller pool of people who's parents did not go to college since the 1970s. I'm not even suggesting that society is not stratifying; I just don't think this is proof of it.
- rossdavidh 4y ago"caste", the word you are looking for is "caste". It's not just a difference in incomes, it's a closed system for reproduction (college educated often meet their future spouse in college, and even if not are rarely willing to marry non-college educated). Closed system for reproduction plus inheritance (genetic and cultural both) is the predecessor to castes, given a few more generations of this kind of separation.
- pyuser583 4y agoExcept “first generation college student” is still very much a thing.