This is why their system is really good to provide an elite education to everyone, who has an extraordinairy mind independent and unburdened by their parents capability of paying for this education. German universities don't produce an elite, neither intellectually, nor financially. I think France does.
The difference to the US is that their system of elite universities, which more or less guarantee you an entry to highly paid and powerful positions and careers is burdened by the cost factor. Though they always pick a couple of "low income and minority students" through complicated somewhat systematic, but still not uniform or standaradized methods, which is compared to French mechanisms rather unfair.
To prepare for elite universities in the US, you have to get into "elite" highschools, which you find mostly in "elite neighborhoods" of very well to do upper middle class families, all clustered geographically and clearly separated from lower middle class, working blue collar or poor neighborhoods. Even if you might find similar separations in Europe (mostly the division is between immigrant working class and the locals), it's not that much of a division as it is in the US.
We spoke here about the underclass, the real poor, which means today the class of broken, out and down people, who have given up and given in to all sorts of self-destructing lifestyles on top of being simply of very low income.
This class is the one you have difficulties to change in the US today. Whereas the older generation and the generation of the civil rights movement had a lot of hope, later options and strength to work themselves out of poverty, today there is few hope, fewer options and little strength left in many of them. I just see more people who silently and decidedly have given up on themselves and kids who disintegrate emotionally.
I think it's a development not older than ten to twenty years or so. People used to believe in upward mobility and fair opportunities for all. I don't think they still do today, even if they don't admit it.
Nevertheless the US produces a lot of politicians, who come from families of modest income and humble beginnings. It would be nice to know, if among the Republicans and Democrats especially among subgroups of conservatives and right wing libertarians or Christian fundamentalists and core moderate Democrats and leftist, progressive and decidedly very liberal Democrats there is a signigican relationship between their ideological view points and the income level of their parents and grand parents.
This paragraph should read: "The difference to the US is that their system of elite universities, which more or less guarantees you an entry to highly paid and powerful positions and careers is burdened by the cost factor. Though they always pick a couple of "low income and minority students" through complicated somewhat systematic, but still not uniform or standardised methods, they are compared to French and German selection mechanisms rather unfair."
Sorry.
Over here there are certainly a few elite universities, the Ivy League schools. If you can manage to get accepted to one of them, the tuition is not really an issue because they are all very well endowed and provide generous scholarships. And after you get out you're in good shape. Harvard, in particular, feeds into government.
At the next level down, the "really good" schools are where you have to pay big bucks to attend. Then at the state level the schools are pretty inexpensive and pretty much anybody can find a way to pay for them. They aren't strictly "free," but there are a lot of ways to find the required money.
An associated issue is the social aspect of valuing education. Universities generally have few black students, way out of proportion to the population distribution. But they have a lot of Asians, also out of proportion, but in the other direction. This seems to be related to how much value is placed on education by various social groups, since there are affirmative action programs for blacks and reverse discrimination problems for Asians.
Another point is that you can go to a state university here and still end up as vice president, Cheney being the current example. But that seems possible in Germany also, and possibly in France. (Not sure about Britain.)
There is also the issue of how you define "class." Does class = money? There are poverty stricken titled aristocrats in Britain. And the Kennedy family in America was pretty low class until a whole lot of money sort of magically appeared in their bank accounts during prohibition. Clinton certainly wasn't poor in the most extreme sense, but now he rubs elbows with the rich and famous. At least in America there is no formal class structure with titles and heredity, although certainly you get a big boost if you have rich parents.
I have personal contact with three types of "upper class" people. One group is the old-time upper class, who had great grandparents in government, with lots of inherited money, and an established place in the system. Another group is the now-poor old-time upper class, who struggle to maintain their position because they can't afford symphony tickets, ski trips to the Alps, and fancy houses. A third group is the new rich, who are also struggling to make the point that they belong to the upper class, by using their money to join the right clubs, go to the right schools, wear the right clothes, etc. Members of all three groups might go to the same church or belong to the same club, but you know who are the old timers and who are the social climbers. But the point is that you CAN move up if you can get enough money.
Bottom line is that if you are smart and work hard you can get to the top pretty much anywhere, although it may be harder or easier in different countries. I don't think that in practice this is a large differentiator between systems.
What I've been trying to establish in my comments is that we have a certain population under that level and it's almost impossible to get out of. Call it the underclass, call it the poor, call it whatever the fuck you want, but the fact of the matter is we have a huge portion of the population living under horrendous conditions -- in the ghettoes, the projects, the barrios, the trailer parks, the meth belt, Bible belt, boonies, on the streets, under bridges, in the fields, and innumerable other places we hide them out of and in plain sight in this enormous, gorgeous wealthy country of ours.
And we ignore them and deride them and mock and dehumanize them. We deny them welfare, medical treatment, education, housing, keep them out of the system and we are absolutely brutal in our blindness and when they become brutal themselves we lock them the fuck up and throw away the key.
I bring this up repeatedly and am met with argument after argument that it is not so and if it is so it is not that bad and if it is that bad it is certainly their own fault, whoever "they" are. 45 million with no medical insurance. Millions of families, children living in poverty. Millions homeless with tent cities cropping up here and there. How many millions will it take for us to admit we have a problem?
This isn't about the upper strata trying to pretend they're high-class. This isn't about the comfortable middle. This isn't about the solid but shrinking working class who vote their fear -- if it's so great here, what the fuck are they so afraid of? Do you think they're just stupid? If we want to solve this political madness, we need to acknowledge what it's rooted in -- poverty. Lots of it. Deny it all you want, but nothing will get done. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
Thank you asdf for your reasoned comments pointing out the use of scholarships (and I would add loans) for students able to qualify at all levels. Mimi either doesn't have access to accurate data about the American university system, or has an agenda to present false data and unfairly criticize the system. It concerns me because I wonder if those on the site with primarily European backgounds might think there was even some accuracy in these comments.
It would be interesting to see if there is an studies, or data, that would allow us to evaluate the upward mobility in the two different systems. I must admit that my intuitive feel is different than yours, in that you think there may be equivalency. Based on living in Europe for three years and spending significant portions of time there for 15 years, is that the French and British system still have significant barriers to upward mobility in the government, in business, and socially. But though I had a lot of experiences, examples, and conversation about this, it's obviously still limited to my own contacts. In other words, I wouldn't put this forward as a fact.
For example, France has a large immigrant population with Muslim religious background and primarily from Africa. Are they moving up in the system? The UK has large black, Pakastani, and Indian minority groups. Are they moving up in the system?
Perhaps someone knows of comparative data in this area.
Here's a link from the LSE to get you started. Google is your friend: I searched on "comparing social mobility between europe and the US" and that popped up.
I suspect that maybe in Europe getting into the top 20% is harder, but in the US getting out of the bottom 20% is harder. Which way around is would be more desirable?
this is looking a lot bigger than I can take on right now, unfortunately. It's very interesting, but would require significant study to get it right.
thank you for the welcome Izzie. Frankly it's always a pleasure to discuss and debate with you.
Without taking the time to analyze this one in detail, there are a litany of examples from the above thread, regarding Mimi's lack of accuracy. Such as, Mimi says: "On an average the tuition costs per month is well over $ 2,000.00 plus for the cheapest public university." A number of examples were given in the commentary of schools with lower tuition; 20+ California State Universities have a tuition per their website of $2000 per year, San Jose University per one poster is at $2500 per year, U of Wisconsin per Izzy is $5600 per year. Needless to say, these are not the cheapest public universities, and her fact is of by a factor of, should we say, 8?
I suspect the same situation is true of most if not all US states.
It is actually rather shameful that the UC will conditionally admit undergraduates that don't meet its minimum English proficiency standards (concerning reading comprehension and essay writing), charge then UC tuition for a whole year while putting them on remedial courses, and throw them out at the end of the year if they fail to pass the infamous "subject A" exam. To cut costs, they have even started to outsource the subject A remedial courses to the University Extension centres and local community colleges, whicle still charging the students UC tuition fees. [The situation I am describing was current as of one year ago, during my last quarter at UC Riverside, the least prestigious of all UC campuses before Merced opened --- it might have changed, maybe for the worst] guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
All in all, with those added in -- non-resident status tuition plus books, her $2000/mo could be accurate for those conditions. Wildly inaccurate for residents, of course, but not inaccurate for what she was discussing.
That said, I'm still working on that diary -- almost done! And it's a thing of beauty if I say so -- all stories and emotion, sweeping generalizations and personal anecdote. There's nary a statistic in sight -- you guys are gonna have a field day in the comments, I swear! Dueling statistics at dawn, sir! I will see you in the comments. :-) Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
If you want to talk about upward mobility and compare those from the US vs. Europe, I think that's impossible.
First, define upward mobility, second, compare just two countries with each other, third, look at all factors that determine of why someone moves upward at all.
Education has not the same weight as a root cause for a person's upward mobility in different countries. Considering just higher education alone, tuition costs are not the only determining factor for access to it. Different countries have different ways of restricting or granting access to higher education. You would have to consider these differences as well to make comparisons meaningful at all.
France and Germany have both large immigrant populations. You have to differentiate here to make any comparisons at all. Are you talking of immigrants, who come as adults to France and/or Germany with or without same mother language, with or without school exit diplomas that allow them to be admitted to universities. There are really several factors which you need to look at, if you want to judge something vague as "upward mobility" through the education you gain in the country you want to move upward in.
I wouldn't know how to comment any further here as long as so many different issues are lumped together.
I am not quite sure I would like to go into discussing those issue that I wouldn't judge in the same way you do and I therefore just leave it at saying that I don't agree with your fourth paragraph.
In your fifth paragraph you try to compare something that doesn't quite fit, as Germany doesn't have private universities at all. It's not only possible in Germany for a German politician to come from a public university, it's impossible to come from anything else, as it doesn't exist.
In your six paragraph you try to get into a definition of what a class is in various countries. This needs a diary in itself, as it is different from the US to England to France and Germany.
And I think in your last paragraph you say something generally true. Luckily people adapt to their environments and it looks like they make it (to the top?) more or less everywhere. But then, if it were true, you wouldn't have huge population migrations. So somehow that might be just a bit smooth soothing talk over issues that might just be painful to face. But I am all for not hurting anyone. So, I agree. :-)
If you come from a poor background in the US you can do quite well in the Educational system given enough time. You would start by going to a community college for the first 2 years of your university education, possibly obtaining an Associate's degree. At more prestigious 4-year, Research or private universities you will pay exorbitant tuition and be in larger classes with instructors who are primarily researchers or not exclusively teachers. At a community college, professional advancement is based entirely on teaching accomplishment, tuition is low and class sizes are small. The only problem is prestige. Community colleges are "where brown kids go to school", and as such they play a key role. It's a shame that they are so underappreciated.
However, if you do well at a community college you should be able to transfer to a 4-year state school and get some financial aid. Since American college students get mostly a general education in their first 2 years, it doesn't really matter that you got that at a community college. Then you can choose any major and graduate from the 4-year school in 2 or 2 1/2 years. Moreover, since these universities don't have graduate programs but the professors are evaluated on research as well as teaching, there are more opportunities for undergraduate research at a 4-year college than at a research university. Some of the best math educators in the US teach at 4-year colleges.
With a good degree from a 4-year state school and some undergraduate research you can get into a public research school for a master's degree with a scholarship or a teaching/research assistantship. Professors at these research intitutions are focused mostly on research and can be of world-class caliber even if the school is not very prestigious.
Now, with a master's degree from a public research university you can get anywhere: law school, medical school, or a Ph.D. program at UCLA or Berkeley, or the Ivy League.
It is a long and winding road, but it can be traversed. The problem is that, for many from depressed backgrounds, high school education is dismal and their community is so dysfunctional that going to a community college is out of the question. Smart kids from depressed backgrounds will tend to find a way in, though. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
I can't help this one last comment -- you've given a great overview of the higher education situation. My perception of the situation matches with everything you've written here with the exception of one small quibble about the smart kids from depressed backgrounds finding a way in -- that can be true and for the most part is true from merely depressed (marginal?) backgrounds.
Lower than that, though -- the kids from the hard backgrounds generally don't make it, even through high-school. Very rarely, exceptional kids make it. And I refer to exceptional in either intelligence, talent, or drive and fortitude. One of these usually is not enough and I think the fortitude is a required element. Maybe we can eventually make language a complete impediment to understanding. -Hobbes
I am somewhat not agreeing with your very last sentence though.
If smart kids from depressed backgrounds tend to find a way in, then I assume that statistically spoken, the smart kids from depressed backgrounds are either not proportionally correctly represented in numbers, or there are statistically speaking fewer smart kids in the population group coming from depressed background.
If the first were true, then it would means that there is no equal access or opportunity for them to get in, if the second were true, it would mean "depressed backgrounds" would have a genetic impact on your "smartness" genes. Well, I can't live with either of these conclusions.
Unequal access or opportunity comes in many forms. Children of affluent parents will go to college even if they are not as bright as many from working poor backgrounds who do not. There is also "white privilege" even if overt racial discrimination is not there, and so on. You shouldn't think of equal opportunity as either existing or not, because then you have to conclude either that it does not exist, or you find yourself blaming victims of social inequalities for their "free" bad life choices. Neither conclusion is acceptable, nor does it follow from the analysis. guaranteed to evoke a violent reaction from police is to challenge their right to "define the situation." --- David Graeber citing Marc Cooper
