Class war is real, the rich are winning, and education is a key part of that war.
Class war is real, the rich are winning, and education is a key part of that war.
Education does not significantly improve outcomes. Period.
What people observe is that people who went to top-tier schools end up being very successful, and make the (totally false) inference that top-tier schools make you successful.
In reality, the people who were almost certainly going to be successful anyway get into the top-tier schools, partially on merit and partially because this is the legitimation process for the upper class in the US.
If you stuff a million poor people into the top-tier schools, this won’t actually fix anything, because A) those people are much less likely to succeed no matter what B) you can’t actually have a million people in the upper class.
We’re currently in the throes of dealing with B). Turchin calls this “elite overproduction”. You have millions of people who (think they) went through the process to become upper class (going to college), but it turns out that was just a signifier - a signifier that’s been totally destroyed by the push to send everyone to college.
Define "significant".
People who don't graduate high school do much worse than people who graduate from college on average.
Even if you only graduate high school, you'll (on average) make half as much over your lifetime as someone who graduated with a Master's Degree [1].
Right now (on average) - people who dropped out of college make nearly 1/3rd as much as people who graduated with a Master's Degree [2].
You're also 36x more likely to be in prison [3]. Only ~10% of the >25 population has not graduated high school. Despite that, 80% of prisoners have not graduated from high school. ~18% of high school drop outs are in prison. Less than 0.5% of the rest of the population is in prison.
You're also almost 50% more likely to be obese (mostly because you're more likely to be poor and live somewhere un-walkable) [4].
You also have a ~13% shorter lifespan (9 less years) [5].
Sure - an education isn't a license to be in the top 1% or have a perfect life - but it certainly helps...
[1] https://www.aplu.org/projects-and-initiatives/college-costs-...
[2] https://study.com/articles/How_Much_More_Do_College_Graduate...
[3] https://slspotlight.com/opinion/2018/03/19/high-school-dropo...
[4] http://educationbythenumbers.org/content/education-might-be-...
[5] https://www.tc.columbia.edu/articles/2005/october/high-schoo...
Both the the Signalling Theory they are advocating and the Human Capital Development (HCD) that I assume you are advocating would make the same predictions on those life indicators you listed.
The difference between the theories is which causes which: does consuming education cause people to have more of the traits that cause good life outcomes OR do the traits that cause good life outcomes also cause people to consume more education?
Pure HCD theory says it is only the first. Pure signalling says only the second.
The two can be mixed. What mix people believe in is important as the two theories result in very different policy goals for our education system.
But both agree that people with more education are going to earn more, commit fewer crimes, experience fewer crimes, be healthier, live longer, etc, etc, etc.
But of course, proving causation is near impossible. So people love to make bold claims with no data and just say "prove me".
I explained why in the top-level post. People who were going to get positive outcomes anyway are good at getting into good schools.
> the burden is on you to prove a non-causal link, not me.
This isn’t Reddit - I wouldn’t drop some nonsense about made up “burden of proof” and expect anyone to buy it. It’s also rude to make objections like this when you clearly haven’t either considered the point you’re responding to (of course people who went to college do better in life - think about why that might be, under my model, and refute that if you can) or actually done the research into the presence or absence of a causal link.
There are 30 years of twin studies demonstrating conclusively that education is not an especially strong predictive factor in adult attainment.
I mean this in good spirit, is there proof that societal classes are bound by size?
But I would quibble about the role education content plays. Canada doesn't have the same kind of tiered education system that the US has. Public schools are funded out of pooled revenue not local taxes for example so poor neighbourhoods don't get poorly funded schools (though that doesn't rule out what happens with "fundraising" but that's another issue). And universities are more affordable and don't generally get 'elite' status and name branding. Universities are generally all of high quality and most sane employers wouldn't sneer based on where your CS degree came from, etc.
But we have similar income inequality issues to the US. Because it's not the curriculum, it's the ongoing class structure, that's the problem.
Now, there's definitely different levels of education quality, but I have yet to see evidence that curriculum content is the problem. I'd argue the chief value of private schools and elite universities is the network of other wealthy people (am I allowed to use the word 'bourgeois?) you'll meet there. It's connecting with people of your own class.
When I worked at a startup here I quickly realized that most founders and investors I met knew each other or knew of each other through the private school circuit. But it was the exclusiveness of the networks they got through there that benefited them, not the quality of the education. They weren't any smarter than me, just better acculturated into the world of investment, finance, etc. by nature of who they knew, what resources they had, and whose kids they were.
"Everyone must learn Latin and French for the first two years. Most boys have studied Latin and French for a couple of years before they arrive at the school. The cleverer boys also do Ancient Greek. There are many more languages offered besides these ones. The additional foreign languages are Russian, Spanish, German. Chinese, Japanese, Italian and Arabic. Those who are not good at languages need do only French and Latin." - Calers (1)
To me this is just one of a myriad of examples that highlight the kind of difference in actual education curriculum between the oligarchs and the rest of us. I would argue much of this is about quality of life instead of "success outcomes", and generally about having a strong liberal arts background being a key component of ANY education worth anything. Which is also why I strongly disagree with those who advocate for sending students straight to vocational schools, and that whole general line of reasoning, for example.
How many of your referenced founders and investors knew Latin and French before the age of 13?
1. https://gcalers.wordpress.com/2014/11/06/what-makes-eton-so-...
"At Ardsley High School, Zuckerberg excelled in classes. After two years, he transferred to the private school Phillips Exeter Academy, where he won prizes in mathematics, astronomy, physics, and classical studies." [no coding classes, hmm?]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillips_Exeter_Academy
The facebook idea came from the booklet tey give each class with a picture of the student's face and location.
https://readwrite.com/2009/05/10/mark_zuckerberg_inspiration...
Many other founders went to similar schools. I was not aware of this until I did policy debate and met these types of students. They do live in a bubble and have no idea how to relate to the rest.
In fact, a good thing to do is always check the high school of these "founders." Check their curriculum...
When I see trade school students doing billion dollar startups, I will believe education is no longer a great equalizer. At the same time, I believe if you want to participate in the American oligarchy or compete with them, you need to become familiar with where they get their training.
It's not always the case but most times if you delve into their background you will find this to be the case.
Well observed! This has also been my conclusion, but I have to admit a curious line of thinking it spurred. With modern technology, it should be possible to spread this training to the public. If that happened though, what would be the impact? An oversaturated world of elites? Some new faction of elite that would then clash with the old-guard? It's a fun though experiment at least.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harkness_table
The purpose of the small class size discussions and methods similar to Harkness is to teach children how to behave and interact in group discussion. You are taught mental poker with an authority figure and your cohort. I can see the value of this especially for children that will need to supervise their wealth once they become adults. It's a great way to prepare someone to supervise a family office.
I believe learning the short duration decision games and long duration meta game with professor and class inculcates people predisposed to lead and inspire/manipulate.
You need a physical setting to learn this on a daily basis over several years. Even if you are not good at it; if you recognize what is going on you won't waste time in dead end careers or partnerships with elites. That is very valuable...
It's kind of funny. When people ask me which college they should send their kid to, I always reply better to spend their money on one of these types of private high schools or boarding schools. One of these kids and a community college degree will still be better off than most... (most likely they will find a way to continue the credential game, so...)
Will the American oligarchy provide these opportunities to the general public? Never... it's costly and time consuming. They need people that submit to quarterly reviews, 0-5% raises, and tenuous year end bonuses.
Maybe we should have a FAFSA for high school...
The curriculum at elite schools speaks to the investments made for these children outside school. Not just tutoring, but parental support for homework, etc.
At the end of the day, neither Latin nor French is, per se, likely to matter one iota regarding aggregate success. People don't get wealthy by graduating with a degree in Classics or French Literature. What matters is what these things reflect.
Why would they? The middle class is made of doctors, engineers, artists, craftsmen, chefs,... If you are rich and powerful, you want doctors to care for you when you are sick, engineers to design your private jet, artists to entertain you, craftsmen to build your mansion, chefs to prepare you the best meals,... Mindless slaves had some value in the pre-industrial times, but now, we have machines that do the work of thousands of slaves, cheaper and better. The rich want people to serve them, sure, but they want them smart and productive. And people don't become smart and productive when they are struggling with life.
Just look at the rich and powerful during the pandemic, they got hit like the rest of us. Better treatment, and they quarantined in paradise islands, but they still died and had to do all the social distancing stuff. And guess who saved their ass, yep, middle class, and they know it, they are not stupid.
There is no class war, no conspiracy. In fact, if there is war, it is between the member of each class. It is a tragedy of the commons situation, where the common here is the workforce.
Your example with public vs private schools has less to do with diminishing public schools and everything to do with their maximizing their own children's education. If we end private schools, do we still allow paid tutors? If so, I don't see how that field gets levelled.
https://www.fastcompany.com/90642878/worker-pay-went-up-just...
And that’s not even starting on lobbying and policy.
Regardless, the fact is executive pay has been rising while worker pay has been stagnant for decades. That’s not even up for debate, it’s a fact.
Hey, let me convert my ramen money into 2 Berkshire Hathaway shares.
Do you realize how ridiculous and disconnected from reality you comment sounds?
Only schools where wealthy people live get good funding, so when they concentrate where they live to one place, everywhere else suffers
It turns out that life outcomes have approximately nothing whatsoever to do with how much money your childhood schools got.
It also strikes me as quite perverse to blame people who are able to move their children out of schools that have become terrible (through no fault of their own).
How do some schools become terrible if they are public and well funded?
They become terrible because funding is not distributed evenly.
My experience as a secondary school teacher in multiple Title 1 schools was that when you are responsible for a classroom of 30 students, once you have more than a few with high needs (3-5 in my experience) you are unable to provide any of them the support they need. When I taught in an affluent school, I saw that students who were in Special Education programs were given a lot more personal attention and support, which provided them the structure they needed to be successful. Students where those needs are concentrated don't get the attention and support and as a result are very, very unlikely to be successful academically.
This is totally opposite to my experience in public school through age 11. I never got the advanced instruction I needed, trying to mix like 4-6 stddev of ability in a single classroom never worked, and no one on the low end really benefitted from it.
Your anecdote does not appear to contradict my statement. I made a statement about students with high needs being concentrated in a class or school overwhelming the system, and you made a statement about being a single student with exceptional ability in what I interpreted to be a typical American classroom setting not getting personalized instruction.
People not being involved is a big way schools become terrible.
If the people who would push for quality can simply opt out instead, what's left? If the people who know what it takes to succeed abandon the system, who left is supposed to even know what is required to make the public system succeed? Any loss of funding pales in comparison to lost passion and expertise.
Most public services that the well-off don't have to use are going to suck, because the only victims are by definition the ones without much power to make change!
This is different state-by-state. For example, where I live, and in the South, in general from what I have seen, local taxes only makes up a small portion of school funds. The rest is Federal and State money. The bulk of it is state money, and that is apportioned by need. So in most cases, for public schools, the poorest areas have the most funds!
Vigorously target labor unions. Lobby for substantial decreases in state and Federal taxation, reductions that have in turn necessitated major reductions in education spending and substantial tuition increases that hit middle class families [1]. Attempt (so far unsuccessfully) to privatize social security. Strongly oppose healthcare reform proposals that might reduce out-of-pocket spending.
PS The above examples are a very small part of the story. It's honestly shocking to me that the question even gets asked, or has to be answered.
[1] https://www.cbpp.org/research/state-budget-and-tax/state-hig...
Business tax cuts benefit shareholders, and globally there has been a race to the bottom to pit locations against each other to try to drive profit margins. These things have largely affected manufacturing - manufacturing itself being marginalized in the greater business landscape as other more profitable industries have gained favor. Note that "the rich" are not all that intertwined in the minutiae of manufacturing.
Opposing health care reform is also a niche issue dominated by well-connected insurance companies. Many other industries would like nothing more than the government to take over health care costs and lower their own burden (including tech companies who end up paying exorbitant amounts to fund these benefits against other competitors). The health insurance companies (and related industries which benefit from price gouging in the health care industry) are entrenched in lobbying and congress and have the clout to block these efforts. Insurance companies aren't "the rich" they are simply well connected with government.
Much of the talk about "the rich" trying to "destroy the middle class" really come down to two large buckets:
* Company shareholders benefiting from profit margins (outsourcing, manufacturing, lowering cost without oversight or regulation) - this benefits "the rich" is so far as "the rich" are shareholders of these companies
* Niche industries having disproportionate influence in our political system - such as private prison lobby, health insurance lobby, etc. - these players have in turn disproportionate impact on our legislative process because they are entrenched and intertwined with members of congress
It doesn't benefit "the rich" to have a poor population, if anything it makes the rich more vulnerable. What we are seeing play out is actually unintended consequences of greed and plain as day corruption which continues without oversight and regulation.
If you want a concrete example of this in a modern, western country you only need to look to Australia to see the paralysis that has occurred over climate and carbon policies. Every time we get close to making some progress on curbing our coal producers, a political ruction occurs. This happened again just days ago when the rump/conservative/rural voter party (The Nationals) replaced their leader with a coal industry supporter - simply because the leader of the majority conservative party in their coalition publically mooted a potential change to net zero emissions by 2050. It's like clockwork and ordinary people can do exactly zero things about it.
How does this destroy the middle class? Big companies need educated workers but they don't like the wage bill associated with it. Decimating the middle class via automation and flooding the market with educated people ensures a long term supply of poor-but-educated. That's the end goal of this project and the measurable difference in wealth inequality proves that it is working extremely well.
The rich are the shareholders of companies. According to the Department of Labor's survey of consumer finances, the wealthiest 1% own 38% of stock. The wealthiest 5% own 71% of stock. The bottom half of the country owns 1% of the stock.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/26/upshot/stocks-pandemic-in...
> It doesn't benefit "the rich" to have a poor population, if anything it makes the rich more vulnerable.
That means after a company does its capital investments, the rich would prefer money going to wages over profits. The opposite has been the case for past centuries (not that they never lose the battle).
It may be dialectically self-destructive, but so is the arms race with Russia (and China), so is increasing carbon production. Russia's czar in the early 20th century had self-destructive properties as well.
Also, I never advocated for ending private schools. You are strawmanning that one, and it's a perhipherial point to the topic anyway.
Since you asked though, how about the Fed's endless bailouts of the rich that are still ongoing? Those same bailouts that then get turned around into lobbying dollars to rewrite the laws to favor corporations over people (or stock buybacks, I could go on)? Like I said, intent is hard to prove, but there is a lot of inductive evidence pointing towards it being of a high probability.
"Empires are even sometimes represented as unintentional. That's when it really starts to get cute. This should have been called maybe the funnier myths of empire, this part of it. The product of unconcious circumstance. When I was a youth, ... I used to hear that the British Empire was put together in a fit of absent mindedness. ... In fact, ladies and gentlemen, I think a moments reflection would tell you that empires are products of deliberate contrivance, of deliberate confection, planning, calculation, and manipulation. No social order can maintain itself in the long run, no social order can maintain itself without concious human agency. In fact that's why you have a state, the state is the concious human agency of coercion to maintain that particular set of interests and order, which don't necessarily always look out for our interests." - Michael Parenti
Yes, that is exactly how it happens. I agree there is not a specific intent to destroy the middle class. There is an intent by the wealthy to keep their taxes going to only those schools and services that would benefit their children — the rest of the community can just fuck off and get rich if they want good education too.
It's like that in all ways. Not specifically antagonistic toward the working class, just selfish.
Another example: they give money to politicians that will pass legislation that will favor them and theirs. Again, the rest of us can get rich and buy our own politicians if we don't like it.
Human nature? Maybe. And no doubt the working class can behave selfishly as well. But the working class and poor don't have the financial means to bend policy toward their selfishness, only the wealthy can do that.
I believe that there's a success gap, but that's plausibly down to the inescapable networking advantages of concentrating elites, and isn't relevant to the specific claim you're making.
These issues are always so complicated because they don't operate in any of the ways that people assume stereotypically. One person will be hit by circumstance positively or negatively in a way that's idiosyncratic to them, and privilege operates in subtle ways sometimes.
As for your question, a few years ago there was a blog post making the rounds showing that across colleges, students improve across their undergrad years on standardized testing, but it's pretty much uniform across colleges. More selective colleges have higher means (and in some studies lower variance) but the rate of learning isn't any different, and there's huge overlaps in distributions between institutions. I've tried to find it but haven't been able to from where I'm at at the moment.
"We also didn't want to hire anyone from what were considered lesser universities" Eric Schmidt https://youtu.be/hcRxFRgNpns?t=1756