As a left-leaning contrarian, I’ve never regarded conservative columnist David Brooks of the New York Times as a must-read, although his recent claim to fame as the poet laureate of the American exurb seems to me justified.
That being said, here’s a Brooks column worth reading:
“The Education Gap,” by David Brooks, New York Times, September 26th, 2005 (the story link is to a web site that has taken the liberty of reprinting Brooks’s column, with or without permission of the NYT, which has added his works to its "select" for-pay plan).
Here are excerpts:
As you doubtless know, as the information age matures, a new sort of stratification is setting in, between those with higher education and those without. College graduates earn nearly twice as much as high school graduates, and people with professional degrees earn nearly twice as much as those with college degrees ...
… A social chasm is opening up between those in educated society and those in non-educated society, and you are beginning to see vast behavioral differences between the two groups.
For example, divorce rates for college grads are plummeting, but they are not for everyone else. The divorce rate for high school grads is now twice as high as that of college grads.
There are other behavior differences, large and small, which reflect the different social norms in the two
classes. High school grads are twice as likely to smoke as college grads. They are much less likely to exercise. College grads are nearly twice as likely to vote. They are more than twice as likely to do voluntary work. They are much more likely to give blood. These behavioral gaps are widening …
… In an information society, college is the gateway to opportunity. Crucial life paths are set at age 18,
which means family and upbringing matter more.
Educated parents not only pass down economic resources to their children, they pass down expectations, habits, knowledge and cognitive abilities. Pretty soon you end up with a hereditary meritocratic class that reinforces itself generation after generation …
… now the gap between rich and poor is widening. Students in the poorest quarter of the population have an 8.6 percent chance of getting a college degree. Students in the top quarter have a 74.9 percent chance.
According to Brooks, “only 28 percent” of American adults have a college degree.
At the same time, according to the 2000 census, a bit less than 16% of New Albany’s residents can make the same claim.
In a key passage, Brooks writes of the necessity of individuals being “culturally prepared” for college.
Seeing as the concept of culture embraces the community outside the home and family, and given New Albany’s wider gap, it seems fair to ask whether we as a city are “culturally prepared” for college, in the sense of possessing a culture that values higher education and understands that unless the city gets “smarter,” (in this way and in many others) it is likely to be left even further behind than it is now.
Our local newspaper, the Tribune, commonly embodies the educational disconnect that afflicts New Albany. On the positive side, and owing primarily to the personal interest of its managing editor, the newspaper does a fairly good job of covering issues pertaining to area elementary schools and high schools.
Unfortunately, the coverage usually stops there. Universities are confined to the sports page ghetto, and Indiana University Southeast seldom makes the cut when it comes to education news in the Tribune, an omission that handily reinforces the notion that a high school education is sufficient in today’s job market, and college is an institution one watches play ball on television -- and, as Brooks explains, the facts indicate that this simply isn’t so.
And who can forget the night that Councilman Dan Coffey disparaged reading, in public, during a council meeting?
The arrival one year ago of our first full-service bookstore in fifty years caused much excitement, but the pathetic thing is that for every dozen customers, there are two or three others who actively fear, and more often than not loathe, the possibilities engendered by literacy, and symbolized by rows of books that they themselves detest, and would deprive from others if given the wish.
We can take Brooks or leave him as we please, but it remains that now more than ever, education isn’t everything – it’s the only thing, and that’s why NA Confidential will never “give a break” to any elected public official (or, for that matter, any private citizen) who expresses contempt or derision for the concept of learning as a means of human betterment– or behaves in such a manner as to suggest that there is virtue to be derived from such a position.
There is none. The sooner we get smarter, the better.
15 comments:
Not having a college degree is a prerequisite for not being educated. Many,many folks who claim to have the degree did not in fact get the education that goes along with it. Just look at the leadership of many of our corporations and government positions.
Tim is correct with regard to his articles in the Tribune, and the gist of my point remains that the newspaper is seldom able to see past high school when the topic is education. Take Tim's articles out of trhe mix, and what's been in the paper lately about IUS?
Ed, it's certainly true that there are well educated non-degree holders and bearers of degrees who can't think their way past a wet beer label.
If I'm not mistaken, the point of Brooks and many others simply is to look at the statistics (damned lies and otherwise) in search of trends.
My point concurs with yours: If information increasingly is the common currency, and several elected leaders lack the training to process it, then newer, better educated blood is needed.
It'd be interesting to know how many of the 25 or so ranking elected leaders in the city, i.e., the mayor through city council down to the elected office managers, have college degrees. Is the percentage above or below New Albany's, and America's, average?
Just curious, that's all.
Perhaps we should consider making a high school diploma a prerequisite for public employ, elected or appointed.
While I agree with Ed's point that there are many ways to become an educated person, it's difficult to imagine that someone unwilling to at least complete the requirements for a GED would bring much to a discussion concerning making better use of educational opportunities, much less the redevelopment of those opportunities.
Roger,
Even if you classify yourself as left leaning, you certainly write a wonderful article that in essence proposes a good argument for traditional family values. The statistics also show that a two parent stable family promotes success and leads to higher learning potential and opportunities in life than does any other family environment on a consistent basis.
I think most people would agree with these positions. The tougher question remains how to break the cycle of poverty, laziness, divorce, and the entitlement attitude that drains our culture.
Spoon-feeding people and continuing to allow them to just receive, without work, doesn't seem to be justified. Value of anything, is based on the cost. If it is free, over time, its value approaches zero.
As a conservative, I believe the community should have mechanisms in place to offer opportunities, but it is up to the individuals to utilize them or accept the consequences for not.
I agree, healthblogger.
I'm sure then, that you'll join me in supporting increased adoption rights for gay couples. As you mentioned, a stable, loving, two parent home is extremely beneficial for children. The statistics that point to the gay community's continued educational and financial success as well as the their high level of community involvement bode well for those children also.
The legal benefits offered families by marriage would only serve to strengthen those bonds even futher, offering those spouses and children opportunities and protections now unfairly reserved for only a select demographic.
I'm glad to see a conservative willing to set aside religious dogma in order to help ensure a bright future for our community's children. It's refreshing.
I have no statistics to back this up but it seems to me that many people that I went to high school and college with were the first generation from their families to go to college.
The parents just took for granted that going to college would give their children the best opportunity for the future and expected and encouraged it.
Now it seems that the children who are going to college have parents who went to college and children of parents who did not go to college are not going to college.
Or maybe it is the two very distinct groups of people who I spend my time with who are skewing my perspective.
Certainly college isn't for everyone but in general it is becoming increasingly difficult to find a job with a living wage if one doesn't have a college degree or some kind of specialized training.
With sincere respect, I will have to disagree with Bluegill. Redefining marriage is not the answer. I have no problem with Gay couples adopting children although to imply that it is equal to having a mother and a father in a stable marriage is inaccurate. They can certainly provide a much better environment than these children might possibly have otherwise.
Children should be placed in the best environment for their development and well-being. The onus is on those advocating adoption by homosexual couples to establish that the best interest of a child can ever be served by intentionally depriving the child of a father or a mother.
In addition, there is a large and reliable body of evidence that there are gender-linked differences in parenting skills. Men and women add different strengths to their children's development. Fathers and mothers interact differently with their infant children.
Millennia of human experience, common sense and weighty research support the presumption that the best interest of the child is served by entrusting him or her to a mother and father in a stable marriage.
I do not believe that I am setting aside my Christian dogma by this stance. I still believe homosexuality is morally wrong, but that does not mean we cannot or should not take care of our children by whatever means is best.
Cheers ' BWS. We disagree often but I was elated by your stance. I will buy you a pint in the future. ciao ' jon
I agree with Mr. Smith in the fact that I too came from a blue collar family struggling to make ends meet. I attended both college and post grad degree and I too was disadvantaged because of not having parents that attended college.
But the same reasoning for why Mr. Smith feels disadvantaged in his college and graduate career is my exact point on parents.
If you can put everything else aside and just compare a stable homosexual couple raising a child and a heterosexual couple raising child, the child in the homosexual home has a disadvantage because he/she does not have a mother and a father.
If you can be honest, you will admit there is a difference between a mother and a father in a stable home and either two moms or two dads. They are not interchangeable.
I in no way mean that these kids cannot grow up healthy, happy and successful in this environment, but it is not the absolute ideal environment, just as not having parents that attended college was not the absolute ideal situation for Mr. Smith
These kids are disadvantaged because they do not have what others have. Discrimination is not the issue.
Spammers in 2010 targeting a 2005 post. A very strange world, this cyberspace.
Post a Comment