3 ms·

Writing from a UK perspective here - the idea of a 'ticket to the middle class' is wrong on so many levels. Fundamentally I have trouble with the idea of making

Writing from a UK perspective here - the idea of a 'ticket to the middle class' is wrong on so many levels. Fundamentally I have trouble with the idea of making college the battleground. First of all, the actual pool of bona fide middle class jobs is quite small as far as I can see. Being able to shop at Waitrose is not interesting. If you have no net worth and your parents have no net worth you are not middle class. A mortgage in London on a 1BR flat with the maximum reasonable commute requires a 50K annual income. Outside of the capital; similar situation but with the numbers scaled down. There are jobs that exist paying this well, yes, but they are certainly not common. That is to say that graduating is not necessarily good enough. It might be a good result, or good internships, or talent, or prestige (e.g. an elite university). Income inequality is not the issue; wealth inequality is (specifically, the middle class now sits on levels of wealth that look intergenerational from where I stand). College should not be pulled in to this. College should be about education. About helping people to appreciate and understand this world we have around us. About making adults out of children. The capitalist economy is broken for youth today. Sending them to college won't fix that except for a tiny privileged few.

interesting_att 12y ago
You make a great point. A lot of this "ticket to the middle class" sounds like delaying the issue of wealth inequality. One of the biggest predictor of financial success is who you are born to, something you have no control over. When we drive millions more poor people to college, the average value of a college degree will go down. Then we will come up with some new institution that is the "ticket to the middle class," like getting a masters degree. Back in the 1970s, you could get a job with a high school diploma. Now, you have to go to college, work a few unpaid internships, hope you can get an OK job.
- stegosaurus 12y ago
  'Delaying the issue' is a great way to put it. Social mobility is a distraction. It's not a real solution. It's political language; it assumes the underlying system. A system that cycles people around from being poor to rich based on merit is not a good system, because merit is essentially arbitrary (beyond deliberate antisocial behaviour). I have a talent, my friend does not, I get to live the good life, he gets a lifetime of insecure rental accomodation or homelessness. (True story.) It just does not work. It's based on an outdated idea of work ethic, it assumes people have more control over their faculties than they actually do. I can live with a system that has people competing for sports cars, yachts and jets. Those things don't matter. But having people fight to put a roof over their head is just nonsensical in wealthy countries like the UK/USA. It's a holdover from the Industrial Revolution and the wealthy's desire to force people to labour.
  - NTDF9 12y ago
    It's the same old story again. A nobility is born and serfdom becomes the norm. Here's the kicker! Everyone thinks that the current form of capitalism is good. Right from childhood (at least in the US) the American system of capitalism is drilled into children's minds as the best thing there can be (perhaps even God's chosen system of similar bullcrap)
    - mikerichards 12y ago
      Right from childhood (at least in the US) the American system of capitalism is drilled into children's minds as the best thing there can be (perhaps even God's chosen system of similar bullcrap) And then when they get to college, they're indoctrinated into the exact opposite ideology by marxist/socialist professors into your line of thinking.
      - NTDF9 12y ago
        Because we soon realize that real life is not what it was all made up to be in textbooks and propaganda based literature. Personally, I want reality to be presented the way it is instead of constant self-glorification.
  - mikerichards 12y ago
    Interesting that you bring up political language. "Income inequality gaps" is political language. Who cares if some guy is rich and some other guy has much, much, much less, but still has a car, small house, enough food, etc..? People with political system motives care about that, and not really helping desperate people. A system that cycles people around from being poor to rich based on merit is not a good system, because merit is essentially arbitrary (beyond deliberate antisocial behaviour). Essentially, absolutely, a luck of the cards of who you know or who you gamed to think you have merit? Pretty cynical with obvious ideological connotations..especially the anti-social behavior part. But having people fight to put a roof over their head is just nonsensical in wealthy countries like the UK/USA. You use the word "fight". Fight would presume that there's some motivation involved. Many people increasingly don't have motivation and are copping out with "disability". It's a holdover from the Industrial Revolution and the wealthy's desire to force people to labour. Wealthy people tend to supply the jobs, but they don't have the guns to force people to do anything. The government has the guns to force people.
eellpp 12y ago
Ideally college education is about providing economic freedom by opening up many possibilities for the young mind. It provides a basic knowhow to get started in a field of choice or having the confidence that a skill to get started on anything can achieved by following a learning process. Even if the person takes up a job, does a startup or even do nothing, it is a choice left upon him (which may not be there before acquiring that knowledge). The society as whole benefits from this progressive outlook of its people. It seems instead of looking through this perspective, the whole endeavour is viewed as making an investment and reaping monetary gains thereafter. Of-course then the service providers and lenders want their piece of pie. Currently the system is designed for goal that does not match its true objective. Its broken in that sense. One idea often mentioned is to maintain the current model by limiting the college education to select few who really deserve it. Instead of this regressive view, the economic aspect of college education needs to be addressed.

interesting_att 12y ago

You make a great point. A lot of this "ticket to the middle class" sounds like delaying the issue of wealth inequality. One of the biggest predictor of financial success is who you are born to, something you have no control over. When we drive millions more poor people to college, the average value of a college degree will go down. Then we will come up with some new institution that is the "ticket to the middle class," like getting a masters degree. Back in the 1970s, you could get a job with a high school diploma. Now, you have to go to college, work a few unpaid internships, hope you can get an OK job.

stegosaurus 12y ago
'Delaying the issue' is a great way to put it. Social mobility is a distraction. It's not a real solution. It's political language; it assumes the underlying system. A system that cycles people around from being poor to rich based on merit is not a good system, because merit is essentially arbitrary (beyond deliberate antisocial behaviour). I have a talent, my friend does not, I get to live the good life, he gets a lifetime of insecure rental accomodation or homelessness. (True story.) It just does not work. It's based on an outdated idea of work ethic, it assumes people have more control over their faculties than they actually do. I can live with a system that has people competing for sports cars, yachts and jets. Those things don't matter. But having people fight to put a roof over their head is just nonsensical in wealthy countries like the UK/USA. It's a holdover from the Industrial Revolution and the wealthy's desire to force people to labour.
- NTDF9 12y ago
  It's the same old story again. A nobility is born and serfdom becomes the norm. Here's the kicker! Everyone thinks that the current form of capitalism is good. Right from childhood (at least in the US) the American system of capitalism is drilled into children's minds as the best thing there can be (perhaps even God's chosen system of similar bullcrap)
  - mikerichards 12y ago
    Right from childhood (at least in the US) the American system of capitalism is drilled into children's minds as the best thing there can be (perhaps even God's chosen system of similar bullcrap) And then when they get to college, they're indoctrinated into the exact opposite ideology by marxist/socialist professors into your line of thinking.
    - NTDF9 12y ago
      Because we soon realize that real life is not what it was all made up to be in textbooks and propaganda based literature. Personally, I want reality to be presented the way it is instead of constant self-glorification.
- mikerichards 12y ago
  Interesting that you bring up political language. "Income inequality gaps" is political language. Who cares if some guy is rich and some other guy has much, much, much less, but still has a car, small house, enough food, etc..? People with political system motives care about that, and not really helping desperate people. A system that cycles people around from being poor to rich based on merit is not a good system, because merit is essentially arbitrary (beyond deliberate antisocial behaviour). Essentially, absolutely, a luck of the cards of who you know or who you gamed to think you have merit? Pretty cynical with obvious ideological connotations..especially the anti-social behavior part. But having people fight to put a roof over their head is just nonsensical in wealthy countries like the UK/USA. You use the word "fight". Fight would presume that there's some motivation involved. Many people increasingly don't have motivation and are copping out with "disability". It's a holdover from the Industrial Revolution and the wealthy's desire to force people to labour. Wealthy people tend to supply the jobs, but they don't have the guns to force people to do anything. The government has the guns to force people.

eellpp 12y ago

Ideally college education is about providing economic freedom by opening up many possibilities for the young mind. It provides a basic knowhow to get started in a field of choice or having the confidence that a skill to get started on anything can achieved by following a learning process. Even if the person takes up a job, does a startup or even do nothing, it is a choice left upon him (which may not be there before acquiring that knowledge). The society as whole benefits from this progressive outlook of its people. It seems instead of looking through this perspective, the whole endeavour is viewed as making an investment and reaping monetary gains thereafter. Of-course then the service providers and lenders want their piece of pie. Currently the system is designed for goal that does not match its true objective. Its broken in that sense. One idea often mentioned is to maintain the current model by limiting the college education to select few who really deserve it. Instead of this regressive view, the economic aspect of college education needs to be addressed.