
Why poor kids don’t stay in college - Futurebot
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2014/10/20/why-poor-kids-dont-stay-in-college/
======
vinceguidry
I think the national obsession with higher education will reach a breaking
point eventually. It's just too expensive, the benefits are uncertain for
lower-strata matriculants, and expecting students to pay the costs themselves
is unreasonable. We're going to have to learn to live with a tiered system
where the less well-off go to trade schools and well-to-do parents can pay for
their kid's general education. The demand is there, the trades have been
hemorrhaging talent for years, universities have been monopolizing the "what
to do with kids after they graduate high school" market for way too long, and
for-profit colleges are a bust.

The answer is pay-as-you-go trade school, but it's going to take the nation
awhile to warm to the idea. As one of my favorite sayings puts it, America is
a nation of temporarily-embarrassed millionaires. We need to change our
collective belief that a university education is every American's right. It's
simply unmanageable. Perhaps in a few hundred years we'll have amassed enough
national wealth to be able to afford the institutional and social investment,
right now it's a pipe dream.

I did not graduate college. I looked at the cost-benefit structure and decided
I'd be better off making my own future as an autodidact. It worked for me, but
I do not expect my children to follow in my footsteps, I am prepared to bear
the entire cost of my children's education.

~~~
superuser2
"We can't afford it" as a rhetorical device in public policy cannot possibly
die a slow or painful enough death. Economic "realities" were created by
political power and they can (often should) be unmade by political power.

We can afford to give every American child a university education, but to do
so we'd need to raise taxes or cut other spending, and we aren't willing to do
either of those things. Saying that we can't afford it pretends it's out of
our collective control, not our responsibility, which is a plain lie. We
choose not to. We make a choice that the defense sector getting absolutely
everything it can dream of is more important. We make a choice that
subsidizing employers' payroll expenses (keeping their minimum wage workers
alive on welfare) so that they can sustain their profit margins is more
important.

I'd argue these are wrong choices, but the politicians saying so don't poll
too well. They are simply the choices we've made.

You're right though, expecting students to pay for it themselves is
unreasonable. But it ought to be a burden shared by society, not restricted to
the rich. Elementary education too was once a luxury for the children of
aristocrats; that we've expanded it is progress.

~~~
vinceguidry
> "We can't afford it" as a rhetorical device in public policy cannot possibly
> die a slow or painful enough death.

That's what politics is. If you can't understand the concept of a political
reality, then your views will forever remain the domain of the idealist,
talked about, in the same tenor that one yaks about science fiction premises,
but never implemented. Sure, Star Trek has a cool economy. How many Senators
watched TNG?

Political realities are stronger than actual realities. It takes real people
to change things, these people are beholden to other people and not your
whims.

~~~
superuser2
Funny thing, though, it's always the side that shares your values that's being
realistic.

GP claims equal access to education is impossible, like FTL travel or
perpetual motion. The political reality is that it's just something not enough
people care enough about. Public opinion is a great deal more malleable than
physics. We could care, and then it would stop being impossible. So it is not
impossible at all.

~~~
vinceguidry
I am the GP.

I think you need to study geopolitics a bit more. These things are not
unpredictable. You just have to think a little bigger than what you wish was.
The current US election cycle is an excellent test of how far one person can
influence the news cycle. Donald Trump has steam, but he's pandering to a base
that can't elect him by itself and he's making too many enemies to be able to
muscle his way through. Candidates who don't come up through the current
political establishment all have the exact same handicap. Obama couldn't have
gotten elected as an independent.

------
jonesb6
Also consider these two personal observations:

1) The increase in college enrollment has exceeded the capacity of many in-
state schools (a.k.a. the more affordable ones) and influenced many 18-year
olds to enroll in out-of-state schools (a.k.a. the six figure ones).

2) From a very young age kids today are taught that college is a no-brainer,
and the quality of the college they go to will deeply impact their future
success. So do you pick that community college route which is affordable, or
that six figure out of state school?

Every part of this is a quagmire, and it's creating more and more frustration
and outrage. I have no clue what the end result will be, but it won't be good.

~~~
a3n
> do you pick that community college route which is affordable, or that six
> figure out of state school?

In case anyone is seriously in this dilemma, take up to two years of CC for
prelims etc, then transfer to university. $UNIVERSITY will be where you
graduate from, not CC. You'll also have smaller class sizes and will probably
get more out of your classes and teachers.

~~~
dragonwriter
Except for universities which have transfer agreements with the particular CCs
(which are common for state-run universities and same-state-run CCs, less so
otherwise), it can be more difficult to transfer from a CC to university than
for a student out of high school to get into that university as a freshman --
many universities are less geared to transfer admission, and many CCs don't
provide opportunities to stand out (especially when competing transfers at the
same level may be from other universities, as well as CCs.)

So, that strategy can work -- but it has limits.

~~~
lostcolony
Yes, if you're looking to wind up at an out of state uni, you're probably
screwed and will have to fork over massive amounts of cash.

If you're looking for in state, though, the savings from a CC are huge,
especially if you can still live at home while attending, and it doesn't
affect your academic record (well, it may indirectly in whether your GPA
transfers when your credits do)

~~~
dragonwriter
Its not just an in-state/out-of-state issue. In-state private universities
(which in many cases are _less_ expensive for many students after need-based
aid than public universities) may be just as problematic as out-of-state
universities in taking CC credits.

> If you're looking for in state, though, the savings from a CC are huge,
> especially if you can still live at home while attending

"Live at home while attending" vs. "move out to live near school" is a
separate axis of variation from CC vs. university. But, yes, its somewhat more
likely that this will be a viable option with a CC.

------
FussyZeus
You take the most vulnerable elements of the population, entice them with
grants promising a better future, then sell them expensive loans that can
never be removed via bankruptcy, then sell them an education that increasingly
is not a guarantee of any success whatsoever and then when things come up as
they do in every life, we punish them even harder, oftentimes for life.

Madness is what it is. Pure madness.

~~~
danieltillett
Indentured servitude is the term you are looking for [1].

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant)

~~~
FussyZeus
As much as I dislike hyperbolic sounding terms, there really is no better word
for it.

------
cpursley
> A theater major

 _Sigh_

I'm all for increasing access to education, but these types of majors with
0.02% chance of job placement in their field are a major disservice.
Especially so for first-generation college students, and even more so when
non-dischargeable debt is involved.

~~~
pdex
I wonder who taught that person that it's sane or financially responsible to
pick a major like that and harbor any expectation of getting out of poverty.

~~~
mgkimsal
Large numbers of people who all chanted "do what you love and the money will
follow". Which... while not necessarily wrong, doesn't mean that enough money
will follow to pay off massive amounts of higher-ed debt. But that part of the
equation doesn't get trotted out much...

~~~
pdex
Oh yes, it's a popular anthem and It's fine if you have no expectation of
climbing the socioeconomic ladder. Before picking a major it's common sense to
discover salary and job market information before committing to one, it's a
no-brainer. This info is free, available from a variety of sources and easy to
get: no excuses! Life isn't a feel-good circle jerk where people throw money
your way simply out of one's desire to be happy, I'm sure the parents of
college kids featured in the article are acutely aware of that, so is it
stupidity or delusion that causes them to perpetuate the myth?

------
thisisrobv
It's hard to read stories like this. It's so clear that the diversity issues
in the tech industry are in part a signal of a much larger issue in our
nation. Under represented minorities have such a tough time getting a decent
education let alone one in computer science.

That said, I'm hopeful that the industry that I'm a part of can play a large
role in fixing this.

~~~
pdex
I went through far worse getting myself through college and yet I made it.
Life isn't supposed to be easy.

------
rokhayakebe
Time: When you are poor 4 years is "seemingly" an eternity. The greatest gift
money gives is the ability to think long term.

------
coldtea
> _There was a moment in his childhood, he recalls, when his parents lived
> together and the bills were being paid on time. But bad luck and a bad
> economy shook it all apart. One Thanksgiving, he says, his mother suffered
> eight strokes. A couple of months later his dad, a roofer, was badly injured
> in an accident._

That this shortcut to poverty by medical bills can happen in a modern western
society is appalling.

~~~
yummyfajitas
The fact that this causes poverty is simply tautological. Poverty is defined
as a lack of market income + certain cash benefits. Once a person is unable to
work they will become poor regardless of transfer programs or how high their
consumption is.

The way to fix this is to measure poverty by consumption rather than income,
but this is unpopular since it would reveal how little poverty really exists
(eliminating an axe that politicians love to grind).

[http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/14/whats-the-best-way-to-
mea...](http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/14/whats-the-best-way-to-measure-
poverty-income-or-consumption/)

~~~
coldtea
> _The fact that this causes poverty is simply tautological. Poverty is
> defined as a lack of market income + certain cash benefits. Once a person is
> unable to work they will become poor regardless of transfer programs or how
> high their consumption is._

Not in any place were welfare covers those costs. There are people unable to
work for life (e.g. severily injured) that still get a special pension instead
of getting thrown to the streets to be homeless.

And we're not talking about "unable to work forever" either. I've had hard
working friends in the united states who blew all their pension savings
because of some urgent need for a few months of hospital care or some surgery.
This should just not happen (and it doesn't in other places in the West).

> _The way to fix this is to measure poverty by consumption rather than
> income, but this is unpopular since it would reveal how little poverty
> really exists_

How about you try lowering your personal consumption to the levels you find
acceptable for the "non poor", and tell us how it feels? Or, try working 2
jobs to support a child as a single mother, and tell us all about the great
cushy living these people have...

[http://www.amazon.com/Nickel-Dimed-Not-Getting-
America/dp/03...](http://www.amazon.com/Nickel-Dimed-Not-Getting-
America/dp/0312626681)

This idea, that poverty is some absolute value, and we should be thankful that
we don't have to eat from garbage bins or live in caves really needs the Ole
Yeller treatment...

~~~
yummyfajitas
The US has welfare which covers the things you describe - this is excluded
from the poverty measure. You could provide $1MM/year in in-kind benefits
(servants, an estate, you name it) but you wouldn't decrease poverty (as
defined by the US govt) at all.

I have lowered my personal consumption to US poverty levels (<$20k/year) while
living in homeless shelter like conditions (minus the homeless people, aka
youth hostels). In fact i enjoy it so much that I'm checking into one tonight;
hello Singapore!

The idea that poverty is _not_ some absolute value is kind of crazy - if we
solve all this kid's current problems but give other people flying cars and
robots (maintaining his relative position), will he still be unable to finish
school?

Also, why do you bring up a highly non-representative example (a person
working full time) to personify poverty? Why not choose a far more
representative person, like someone not working at all or even seeking
work?[http://www.epi.org/publication/poor-people-work-a-
majority-o...](http://www.epi.org/publication/poor-people-work-a-majority-of-
poor-people-who-can-work-do/) [http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/a-profile-
of-the-working...](http://www.bls.gov/opub/reports/cps/a-profile-of-the-
working-poor-2013.pdf)

~~~
coldtea
> _The idea that poverty is not some absolute value is kind of crazy - if we
> solve all this kid 's current problems but give other people flying cars and
> robots (maintaining his relative position), will he still be unable to
> finish school?_

Kind of crazy? That has been the idea for millennia, being poor has never been
about specific, fixed in time, living conditions. Poor vs rich is a monetary
worth issue, not a "does he have a cellphone" issue, and issues of worth are
relative. It's the same "relative poorness" that's behind a guy making $15k a
year considered poor in the US and frigging rich in Somalia.

> _if we solve all this kid 's current problems but give other people flying
> cars and robots (maintaining his relative position), will he still be unable
> to finish school?_

No, he'll be able to finish school alright (and nobody argued against that).

But he'll still be poor though compared to the people with flying cars and
robots. And if success in that society is helped by having access to such
things, he'll still be behind his peers that have that access.

Same way that if a guy that cannot afford a car has been given a place to
stay, he has solved his homelessness problem, but cannot as easily find a job
since he only has access to nearby jobs that don't require commuting.

> _Also, why do you bring up a highly non-representative example (a person
> working full time) to personify poverty? Why not choose a far more
> representative person, like someone not working at all or even seeking
> work?_

The very title of the first article you linked to is: "A Majority of Poor
People Who Can Work Do". As the article itself says, 44.3 percent of the "poor
people" are "working full-time". That's why I brought up "a person working
full time" to personify poverty.

Sure, it's even worse for those who can't find a job, or can only find a part
time job. But at least with a poor person working full time the standard BS
arguments that one can say about an unemployed poor person ("he's just lazy
etc") doesn't even register in the first place.

~~~
yummyfajitas
So you think that because 30% of poor people work full time, your single
mother working 2 jobs is representative? Um, OK.

Note also how that source defines "eligible to work" to get that 44% number
(by excluding students/age >64/disabled, many of whom could be working). The
single mother working 2 jobs is not even representative of this narrowly
defined "eligible to work" category.

------
asadm
It's because they are in an unstable situation and that means their struggle
has to be greater than those who are privileged.

The ones who succeed, are usually more tolerant to stress and that is a major
reason they complete their college.

~~~
coldtea
> _The ones who succeed, are usually more tolerant to stress and that is a
> major reason they complete their college._

They are usually also the lighter cases (less unstable situations), with a
least some parental support, and also the ones who got a few more lucky
breaks.

In the end, though, they ascribe it all to their "hard work" and ignore those
things -- condemning those less fortunate. Mostly like privileged stable upper
middle class students do.

~~~
swiley
All of those are important though. I've watched affluent kids drop out of
school due to a lack of hard work.

~~~
pdex
I've also seen a lot of rich kids from college turn into poverty-stricken
losers; character and work ethic have a lot to do with how well a student does
regardless of their family's resources.

------
littletimmy
This wouldn't be so problematic if college (state and community) were free. By
most estimations, the cost of making college free is around $60 billion, which
is not _that_ significant.

Just force corporations to pay proper taxes, use that money to make college
free, and you'll be doing wonders for this country's citizens. Alternatively,
consider that the Iraq war expenditure could have paid for college in this
country practically through the next century.

~~~
ori_b
To play devil's advocate:

> Just force corporations to pay proper taxes,

Considering that the USA is one of the few countries that taxes on overseas
profits, and has a higher rate of tax than many countries, what exactly are
'proper taxes'?

And considering that many countries have eliminated or reduced the cost of
university without raising taxes excessively, why is it impossible to do the
same in the USA?

~~~
coldtea
Not to mention that $60 billion sounds like a small part of the military
budget, which is already 4-10 times the size of the next country, and mostly
used to abuse other places instead of defense.

~~~
jedrek
The main roles of the US Armed Forces are currently the support of US business
interests abroad, corporate subsidies for contractors and as a government jobs
program.

