Oh, you want a definitive answer to the question about college ONLY despite the fact that it applies to almost all aspects of society…only not in the required ratio of 8:1 that you set as the parameters lol. Ok…here’s your answer.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/20/why-poor-kids-dont-stay-in-college/
@BobShaw
I think I stated what the study said quite clearly. Students from poor families apparently GO to college at a 62% rate while those from the upper income bracket go at a 90% rate. In other words a 2:3 ratio to start out, but a 1:8 ratio at the finish line. So while I think you make a lot of great points and bring up some real issues that are big problems, those factors don’t appear to be keeping students from at least starting college at a fairly high rate. The question is why aren’t they staying in. Could it be related to some or all of the issues you mentioned? That is what we need to find out.
@moscott
Very interesting article, but anecdotal, not really a study. What study they do cite seems to have picked different income levels, and so of course the percentages are different as well, but are basically in line with this study. But there was no systematic study cited that actually came up with the biggest reasons for the change from 3:2 to 8:1. I have no doubt that the poverty itself and the infrastructural obstacles are big factors. But we are only guessing at how big they are until someone does a truly in depth study. Maybe they already have. I just haven’t seen it yet, and no one has cited it yet.
BTW, I didn’t set the parameter to be met at 8:1, you did in your statement.
If you meant that less literally, then no problem. That’s fair. But that still doesn’t mean they are the reasons for the failure to get ones degree. By your reasoning, I would have expected the INITIAL ratio of even starting college to be closer to 8:1 or whatever the ratios are for those subjects you brought up. That would actually make more sense to me. But you are arbitrarily saying that the 8:1 ratio could be applied to all these other things, so why not starting college? Because one thing quite possibly has nothing to do with the other. And you don’t know that it does. Which was the only point in the first place. It does no good to act like all these other issues you list, which may or may not exist at similar ratios, are correlated to the 8:1 ratio this study definitively shows occurs for getting a college degree by 24. One has to do a controlled study to determine if none of these factors, one of them, or several of them are responsible for what has been observed for graduation rates. The better information we have about why this dramatic shift from 3:2 to 8:1 occurs, the better it can be attacked and improved.
Let’s drop the discussion of what constitutes a living wage in NYC or anywhere else. It really isn’t the point of this thread at all.
I wonder what the eventual graduation rates are and if there is as big of a discrepancy. Lower income kids are more likely to need to work, and therefore take as many as 8 or more years to graduate.
I can think of some reasons for this.
Money is definitely one. Not only affording college itself (tuition and books and so on) but moreso affording NOT to work fulltime or not being able to be as flexible as many jobs require.
@TV4caster
Completely agree! That is why I said in my initial essay
Now I have heard that the rate of returning to school once you stop is pretty low, but I agree with you that it would be good to nail that down. There should be some ceiling since at some point it becomes pretty late to start on a career track, but I would think that knowing what that number is by the age of 30 would be an interesting comparison, and then again at 40. After that the relevance to ones career seems less interesting. I think going back to school after 40 probably has a different set of reasons than earlier in ones life. JMHO.
@OHMomof2
Yes, that is logical. And we can speculate all we want, which is part of what happens on forums like this. Which is fine of course. But what if, as the article linked to by @moscott gave as an example, transportation issues to and from the college are actually bigger reasons than affordability? Not impossible, given the availability of grants and other financial aid.
Now do I believe that to be true? Probably not, but until we see for sure if it is one of these things that is dominant, both of them, or other important factors are involved in the inability to complete a degree in 6 years, we are shooting in the dark. Another one I can think of is that these students are just that much less prepared for college in their course work, feel overwhelmed by their inability to do the math and/or write a college level paper, and drop out because there are not enough tutoring resources available. If that turned out to be the major finding, that would indicate that we should be focusing on better course rigor in the high schools (which is of course something people have been trying to do for years anyway) and also towards these tutoring resources.
We just need to get to what is truly behind this huge dropout rate. This study is a strong first step because it put some solid numbers to how stark the starting to finishing drop off is, especially compared to the upper income students.
BTW, with regard to your other comment (which I also deleted), it has to stop somewhere. The discussion had pretty much moved on and you brought it up again. That is why.
Duh, no issue with tuition ever!
@fallenchemist: I didn’t read everything you wrote carefully, so apologies for that. Missed many of your main points. It is possible some of the same reasons apply, but I suspect academics may not even be the root cause. It may be a symptom.
Let’s think back at the college experience. You are on your own. No one holds your hand and guides you. No one cares whether you get out of bed and go to lecture in the morning. The workload can be overwhelming at times, and many students have trouble figuring out how to work “smart” within the time limitations. Social life (parties, booze, sex, etc.) can be a serious distraction to many. Kids like me, who were on financial aid, had to spend many hours working a paid job (work-study) while my truly wealthy friends studied or partied. I paid my own way through college, but that took a toll on me. More significantly, more students than we realize suffer from anxiety and depression somewhere along the way, and they feel hopeless and discouraged. I knew a few suicidal types. Some were brilliant students.
Now add to the above formula the ingredient of poverty. If you came from a troubled background, which often goes hand in hand with poverty (not necessarily, but often), trying to discover yourself, avoid getting lost, and find a purpose in life can be difficult - and are those not a big part of the college experience? Professors and administrators in college are not exactly sensitive people who can relate to the trials and tribulations of kids from tough backgrounds (my Nobel Laureate profs were not for sure). On-campus therapists were incompetent. Sometimes the only way out is…er, out. Drop out.
My wife wrote a paper in education grad school in which she explored peer-reviewed, published studies from decades of research on why there is a gender gap in STEM majors in higher academia as well as in STEM careers. (She teaches math.) Many girls/women start out in STEM and then drop out/ switch. The issues are complex, and cause and effect are not always clear-cut. While that problem is not as severe or dramatic, I see some parallels with the subject at hand.
Good discussion.
One thing I do feel pretty confident about is that it isn’t any one thing. Most likely several of the factors mentioned come into play. But is it 60% this, and 25% that and 10% other “stuff”? Again, until that is known with at least some certainty, policy decisions are pretty much being made blindly. And it may not be easy to get an answer that people feel confident about. But someone has to try, if there is any real interest in improving those numbers.
Just an FYI…this has been going on for quite a while and thus the no new revelation. There is no “answer” to fixingit per say. It seems to be a result as in other things cited. In their findings however the ratios are a little different in %29 to %9.
What about dropouts?.. Like Steve Jobs, Paul Allen and Bill Gates; Biz Stone, Williams, Glass, Dorsey, all of Twitter, Zuckerberg. Intellectual capital is the key asset. Also, the study’s elephant in the room is the massive inflation of college tuition and other attendant institutional costs; a doubling in real dollars since 1970 and within that hike is how much of the personnel are administrative and thus non-teaching. Another issue is tenure. How many of us have that in our line of work? Institutions need to be held accountable for the massive inflation they routinely pass along to students and families.
It’s hard to believe that rich people have better stats than poor. I always thought that poor were more determined. Not all poor make it through so it’s to broad to compare wealthy ones who have better access than poor kids who are on the disadvantage side: lack transportation, distractions from violence, domestic problems, etc.
Interesting article. I agree, focusing on income levels is missing the point. The UCs have a vague graph noting a small percentage that does not graduate, without further elucidation. It would be informative to know about that group and where they are coming from.
In terms of financial, most lower income get financial aid, and singling out the anecdotal drop-outs (Jobs, Zuckerberg, Gates) is nano-marginal at best.
There is nothing shocking in any of this.
Not going to let this thread stray off topic by allowing posts that are only talking about the causes of poverty.
Of course they are more likely to graduate. Nothing to see here.
Wealthier people may have a different attitude about education, as others have said, (although not all the time, so let’s not stereotype).
Also if you have to work in school you may have a hard time. My mother worked her junior year in college, not because she needed the money (she had a full merit-based scholarship), but because she initially thought the job was interesting (it was a raw food restaurant). She says it was the worst decision she made in college. If you are an chemical engineering major and working your life is hectic.
My father, who was an aerospace engineering major, says he worked all throughout undergraduate school. It took him six years to graduate.
I won’t have to work through college because of them, and I believe everyone should work hard in school and apply for every merit/need-scholarship in existence so they won’t have to work their way through either.
Another divisive article. We are coming up on an election year- and divisiveness - the “halves vs halves not” works for politicians.
The association of social economic status and school achievement has been known for a long time. While I don’t believe there is a case of one being more capable than the others, economic stresses affect how children learn at all ages.
Even with a scholarship, college involves more than paying tuition and room and board. Students who are not oversly stresed about finances would be able to focus on school more, spend less hours working, and maybe not be so worried about their parents’ survival.
Also, family income correllates with parent’s education. Students whose parents have been through college have role models in their family.
There are a number of reasons. Perhaps one message is that students from low income families need more kinds of support in college than financial aid such as access to mentors. One can not change the circumstances they came from, but it could be possible to change them by supporting their colleges success.
Makes sense, be rich and successful or stay poor and serve the rich!