But considering the costs, is this even possible or desirable to reverse?
The article says we should make it cheaper, but that's a pretty big demand.
>In the 20th century, rich and poor students were equally likely to get humanities degrees. Today, a majority of humanities students are poor.
That's curious as my local community colleges don't have much in the way of big humanities programs. Do others?
> For example, engineering schools often have separate applications, and they require higher test scores and grade point averages. Some “STEM” programs also expect students to arrive having completed prerequisite coursework — the kind more readily available to wealthy students in well-resourced high schools.
I remember this being the case even when I went to school. STEM type programs (we didn't call them that then) had this track that if you weren't already planning to be in you were discouraged from applying / were told you'd probably fail. There was no real way to be a late bloomer and work your way in.
I paid off my student loans, but college was expensive. I applied for 100+ scholarships and won none of them. I came from a middle-class family where my father was a phone installer for AT&T/SWB and barely made enough to make ends meet with three children and a wife. I learned BASIC on a Commodore 64 I shared with my two brothers, and got into BBSing with a VICMODEM 300 Baud MODEM.
Now there are Hacker Bootcamps to learn how to code without a STEM degree.
I don't want to be disrespectful here, but this seems like a contradiction in terms. Can you explain how you'd define "middle-class"?
I was accepted to a reasonably prestigious university, but ran out of money after the first semester, so I wound up coming home and finishing my degree at a state school.
It's also important to note that the student loan system back then was very different: different guarantors, and non-infinite money.
If -- as the article seems to imply -- most of the effect is explained by what schools and programs poorer students are pathed into, it seems plausible that the failing is at the point of pathing (primary/secondary education).
Choosing a 4-year school over a 2-year one means losing 2 more years of employment. To a young adult that can't afford (or their family can't) that sacrifice, a 2-year makes a lot of sense.
There was a time (1970-80) when work-study programs earning decent minimum-wages helped lower that barrier. But over time, the minimum wages failed to go up ... and the once widely-available scholarships were not renewed.
On top of that, the 4-year degree can make it harder to find employment ... especially in rural areas. Not only are there fewer rural jobs for 4-year grads, but if potential employers see that 4-year, they may figure you'll run out on them ASAP.
You could get a 2-year, get a job and get stabilized and then go back for two more years. If you have no or few kids, that might be a safer route. And by that time, you'll have more reasons to pick the right major.
I would note here that -- in addition to the minimum wage not increasing -- the cost of higher education increased substantially faster than inflation or median wage.
Rather like the large gains in weight many people experienced in that same period.
pseudolus•6mo ago