Display:
The US educational system is very much prestige-driven. It matters more where you got your degree from than what you actually learned, and grade inflation means that grade avarages are pretty meaningless: any good student will average A. The system has several tiers of varying prestige levels: 2-year state community colleges, 4-year state universities, 4-year private liberal arts schools, state research intitutions and private research institutions. People focus on trying to get into Harvard when, in my opinion, they might be better served starting out at a community college (certainly in terms of value for money). However, it seems that most American students are after the connections and the prestige, not the education, and so it matters a whole lot to get into the most prestigious university possible. I think, however, that it is a waste to pay huge tuition and cost of living to be a freshman at a university full of nobel prize winners, because they don't teach freshmen. There is actually an underclass of lecturers with Master's degrees who have two or three part-time teaching jobs at different institutions and are in charge of teaching most of the younger students. Not that they are bad, but they are underpaid and overworked, and class sizes are huge. You are better served at a community college.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 11th, 2005 at 02:33:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Even as we speak, I am attempting to write a diary to fullfil Colman's suggestion and gently back away from this thread.  And yet...

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

by Izzy (izzy at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 11th, 2005 at 02:52:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Migeru, that was an excellent overview about the existing system in the US. It seems that my comments here suggested to the readers that for some reason my opinions were based on negative personal expereriences (for lack of money to pay for tuition) or lack of knowledge how the US system works. I just wanted to clarify that this impression is baseless.  

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.

by mimi on Tue Oct 11th, 2005 at 05:00:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think I have to agree with both of you. Disadvantaged kids are underrepresented in higher education, and the poorer your background the more you have to compensate with intelligence, hard work, ambition, perseverance or, as Izzy puts it, fortitude. This is true everywhere, not just in the US, although there may be some qualitative and quantitative differences that I am not able to discuss. After all, I was a Math graduate student, not a social worker.

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

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Tue Oct 11th, 2005 at 05:33:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:
Login
. Make a new account
. Reset password
Occasional Series