Jim Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 While I agree that certain stoopid government decisions - too many friggin wars to start - are contributing to lower education funding and some lack of access - jesus man, there is personal choice involved here. No one is putting a gun to people's heads to take out loans. The constant harping on "woe is me the government isn't helping..." turns people into constant victims. Yea, it ain't perfect, yea we need some change, but friggin' get on with it already. Quote
billcoe Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Like to thank Jayb and Prole for an excellent debate. Good points on both sides of the discussion, yet at the end of the day, I'm in agreement with Jayb, and Pat too: Life is better in more ways for more people now than at any other time in human history, and we have both more wealth and more tools to deal with whatever problems we have than we've ever had before. I agree, on the obesity discussion, (as in many things now) it's a choice we can make. In the old days, even our parents depression era although certainly if you go back further, they were often lucky to get enough to survive. Ie, please STFU already unless you're going to intelligently discuss something that isn't so meta-generically ideological that information exchange actually sucks perfectly good neurons out of the body and flushes them down some great and smelly swirling asshole that also operates in the reverse. This must be the mechanism behind the obvious retardation of the United States. Pat I thought you knew how spray operated...? I'm concerned for you. Did something environmental take out some of your brain cells and you forgot? The CC.com Spray brain trust picture below should tip you off: Quote
prole Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Financial aid does provide a huge subsidy for lower income kids (thank god). But despite Jay's protestations to the contrary, higher education more often than not leads to better outcomes and not just in terms of income. Unless you subscribe to the dumb-and-proud-because-corporations-and-government-know-what's-best-for-me version of social engineering, we still need an educated, informed citizenry that's capable of critical thinking skills that, pardon me, we're not really seeing form Amerika's Hi-Skool Gradjeates. Quote
prole Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Like to thank Jayb and Prole for an excellent debate. Good points on both sides of the discussion, yet at the end of the day, I'm in agreement with Jayb, and Pat too: Life is better in more ways for more people now than at any other time in human history, and we have both more wealth and more tools to deal with whatever problems we have than we've ever had before. Well, then I guess it's a good thing that Jay was the only one that was ever engaged in that "debate"? Great Caesar's Ghost, this Romper Room is exhausting sometimes... Quote
j_b Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 -Where is the crisis? College has been getting more expensive for decades, and the percentage of people getting degrees has been increasing right along with it. 5% of the population was getting degrees at the civilizational apex that you lust after, and very few of them were women or minorities. Now 30% of the population is getting degrees, most of them are women, and there are more minorities enrolled in universities than ever before. This is armageddon? "Where is the crisis"? when you combine the sky-rocketing cost of education with the plunging earning potential of most people, it is a very serous situation for those who want to get an education. Take the blinders off, that might help. This is what I get in every single conversation I have with people. not surprising considering your being oblivious to the pauperization of the middle class "X is getting worse." -No it's not. Look at the data for X. X is getting better." BS. the difference in access between low and high incomes is getting worse in spite of your ignoring it. This isn't Panglossian, it's perspective informed by actually taking the time to acquaint oneself with history. Life is better in more ways for more people now than at any other time in human history, and we have both more wealth and more tools to deal with whatever problems we have than we've ever had before. there are more people so you are bound to have more people doing well but it doesn't mean that the fraction of people doing well has increased. In fact, all around us people are doing much worse. Quote
j_b Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 ... whining ... have another drink folks, Attila once again thought that accusing someone of "whining" would be supporting evidence for his knuckle-dragging. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 ... whining ... have another drink folks, Attila once again thought that accusing someone of "whining" would be supporting evidence for his knuckle-dragging. You've had a few too many already, evidently. Quote
j_b Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 -When the price of something increases more than people's ability to pay for it for decades, how does one explain that? It's only possible when you take money from somewhere else to fill the gap between the price and what people can afford to pay. The money from elsewhere in this case is grants, loans, and a variety of subsidies. because JayB's solution is for people to not get that education rather than making education affordable. But, there3 is no crisis here folks. Nothing to see here These are what have allowed more people than ever to pursue a degree if they want one. Unfortunately - it also means that universities can get away with charging more - or, alternatively, to "offer more" - so they have and they do. We've pumped so much money other than wages and savings into higher ed that it's vastly inflated the price structure. of course, no mention of regressives wanting to make education profitable starting a few decades ago. Then JayB claims he knows history. Quote
prole Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 we have both more wealth and more tools to deal with whatever problems we have than we've ever had before. Unfortunately, most of it is sloshing around in markets that have absolutely nothing to do with problem solving whatsoever... Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 because JayB's solution is for people to not get that education rather than making education affordable. Your "solution" is to just transfer more of the cost to the taxpayer. Why is tuition so high, do you think? What effect do scholarships have on the tuition for those not getting the scholarship, for example? And of course, you'd never want to cut anything from public university budgets, not you, no-sir-ree - that would be so AUSTERE. Cue up the austerity-shill-regressive narrative in 3...2...1... Quote
j_b Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) Financial aid does provide a huge subsidy for lower income kids (thank god). But despite Jay's protestations to the contrary, higher education more often than not leads to better outcomes and not just in terms of income. That's a standard regressive talking point: denying that higher ed leads to better outcomes allows them to say that decreased access to higher edu isn't a crisis. Edited June 22, 2011 by j_b Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Financial aid does provide a huge subsidy for lower income kids (thank god). But despite Jay's protestations to the contrary, higher education more often than not leads to better outcomes and not just in terms of income. That's a standard regressive talking point: denying that higher leads to better outcomes allows them to say that decreased access to higher edu isn't a crisis. OH NOES ANOTHER CRISIS!!!! Quote
prole Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Yes, "hopelessly compromised" along with quintiles and households. More Addams Family thinktank parlor games. Quote
Jim Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Financial aid does provide a huge subsidy for lower income kids (thank god). But despite Jay's protestations to the contrary, higher education more often than not leads to better outcomes and not just in terms of income. That's a standard regressive talking point: denying that higher leads to better outcomes allows them to say that decreased access to higher edu isn't a crisis. If you could actually provide some data, not a narrative, opinon, or Op-Ed article to back any of this up I might tend to agree. I'm not denying it - but again - the above just your opinion with out any backup. Where did you learn to debate - the internets? Quote
prole Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I know this is an "article" but... Life Expectancy Tied to Education By Steven Reinberg HealthDay Reporter Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:00 AM TUESDAY, March 11 (HealthDay News) -- Life expectancy in the United States is on the increase, but only among people with more than 12 years of education, a new study finds. In fact, those with more than 12 years of education -- more than a high school diploma -- can expect to live to 82; for those with 12 or fewer years of education, life expectancy is 75. "If you look in recent decades, you will find that life expectancy has been increasing, which is good, but when you split this out by better-educated groups, the life expectancy gained is really occurring much more so in the better-educated groups," said lead researcher Ellen R. Meara, an assistant professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School. "The puzzle is why we have been successful in extending life span for some groups. Why haven't we been successful in getting that for less advantaged groups?" Meara said. The answer may lie with tobacco, the study found. About one-fifth of the difference in mortality between well-educated and less-educated groups can be accounted for by smoking-related diseases such as lung cancer and emphysema, Meara said. But the disparity in life expectancy is not only a function of education, Meara said. "Those with less education are likely to have lower income. They're likely to live in areas that have their own health threats, either through crime or poor housing conditions. In addition, they may have worse access to health insurance coverage and health services," she said. The study was published in the March/April issue ofHealth Affairs. For the study, Meara's team collected data on people who took part in the National Longitudinal Mortality Study. The researchers used death certificates, plus estimates from Census data, to create two datasets -- one covering 1981 to 1988 and the other from 1990 to 2000. The researchers found that in both datasets, life expectancy rose but only for people with more than 12 years of education. For those with 12 years of education or less, life expectancy remained flat through the periods. When the researchers compared data from the 1980s to data from the 1990s, people with more education had almost a year and half of increased life expectancy. But, for people with less education, life expectancy increased by only six months. In the period of 1990 to 2000, the better educated saw their life expectancy increase by 1.6 years. For the less educated, life expectancy didn't increase in all. When the researchers looked at gender differences, they found that less-educated women actually had a decline in life expectancy. In 2000, those women with more than 12 years of education by age 25 could expect to live five years longer than less-educated women, the study found. The challenge, Meara said, is to figure out ways to extend life expectancy of all groups in U.S society. "We need to get a better understanding of how we can extend these great things we're learning about how to lead healthier lives into these groups," she said. Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Yale University School of Medicine's Prevention Research Center, thinks fighting poverty and improving education are key to increasing life expectancy among less-advantaged Americans. "Disparities in health are a major challenge in the United States," he said. "The less affluent and less educated are also, invariably, less healthy." Initiatives that target health disparities are always welcome, but they may not go far enough if they don't relieve underlying discrepancies in educational or economic status, Katz said. "Despite efforts throughout the 1980s and 1990s to reduce the disproportionate mortality and morbidity burden experienced by ethnic minorities and the socio-economically disadvantaged, those burdens have persisted," Katz said. "And the gap in life expectancy between the more educated and the less has actually widened." The take-home message is to redouble efforts to eliminate health disparities, Katz said. "Health is not a product of health care per se, but of one's life course and opportunities. Poverty and limited education are enemies to both opportunity and health. Public health efforts must strive against them as earnestly as against the diseases they drag in their wake." In another report in the same journal issue, Rachel Kimbro, a sociology professor at Rice University, and colleagues found that immigrants with low levels of education fared better in health outcomes compared with native-born Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity. The researchers said these differences should be taken into account when targeting programs to reach specific groups of people.--from here. Quote
Jim Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I know this is an "article" but... Life Expectancy Tied to Education By Steven Reinberg HealthDay Reporter Tuesday, March 11, 2008 12:00 AM TUESDAY, March 11 (HealthDay News) -- Life expectancy in the United States is on the increase, but only among people with more than 12 years of education, a new study finds. In fact, those with more than 12 years of education -- more than a high school diploma -- can expect to live to 82; for those with 12 or fewer years of education, life expectancy is 75. "If you look in recent decades, you will find that life expectancy has been increasing, which is good, but when you split this out by better-educated groups, the life expectancy gained is really occurring much more so in the better-educated groups," said lead researcher Ellen R. Meara, an assistant professor of health care policy at Harvard Medical School. "The puzzle is why we have been successful in extending life span for some groups. Why haven't we been successful in getting that for less advantaged groups?" Meara said. The answer may lie with tobacco, the study found. About one-fifth of the difference in mortality between well-educated and less-educated groups can be accounted for by smoking-related diseases such as lung cancer and emphysema, Meara said. But the disparity in life expectancy is not only a function of education, Meara said. "Those with less education are likely to have lower income. They're likely to live in areas that have their own health threats, either through crime or poor housing conditions. In addition, they may have worse access to health insurance coverage and health services," she said. The study was published in the March/April issue ofHealth Affairs. For the study, Meara's team collected data on people who took part in the National Longitudinal Mortality Study. The researchers used death certificates, plus estimates from Census data, to create two datasets -- one covering 1981 to 1988 and the other from 1990 to 2000. The researchers found that in both datasets, life expectancy rose but only for people with more than 12 years of education. For those with 12 years of education or less, life expectancy remained flat through the periods. When the researchers compared data from the 1980s to data from the 1990s, people with more education had almost a year and half of increased life expectancy. But, for people with less education, life expectancy increased by only six months. In the period of 1990 to 2000, the better educated saw their life expectancy increase by 1.6 years. For the less educated, life expectancy didn't increase in all. When the researchers looked at gender differences, they found that less-educated women actually had a decline in life expectancy. In 2000, those women with more than 12 years of education by age 25 could expect to live five years longer than less-educated women, the study found. The challenge, Meara said, is to figure out ways to extend life expectancy of all groups in U.S society. "We need to get a better understanding of how we can extend these great things we're learning about how to lead healthier lives into these groups," she said. Dr. David L. Katz, director of the Yale University School of Medicine's Prevention Research Center, thinks fighting poverty and improving education are key to increasing life expectancy among less-advantaged Americans. "Disparities in health are a major challenge in the United States," he said. "The less affluent and less educated are also, invariably, less healthy." Initiatives that target health disparities are always welcome, but they may not go far enough if they don't relieve underlying discrepancies in educational or economic status, Katz said. "Despite efforts throughout the 1980s and 1990s to reduce the disproportionate mortality and morbidity burden experienced by ethnic minorities and the socio-economically disadvantaged, those burdens have persisted," Katz said. "And the gap in life expectancy between the more educated and the less has actually widened." The take-home message is to redouble efforts to eliminate health disparities, Katz said. "Health is not a product of health care per se, but of one's life course and opportunities. Poverty and limited education are enemies to both opportunity and health. Public health efforts must strive against them as earnestly as against the diseases they drag in their wake." In another report in the same journal issue, Rachel Kimbro, a sociology professor at Rice University, and colleagues found that immigrants with low levels of education fared better in health outcomes compared with native-born Americans, regardless of race or ethnicity. The researchers said these differences should be taken into account when targeting programs to reach specific groups of people.--from here. OK. Now we're talking. Benefit to education - better health. Except - they were talking about a high school education - not the benefit of college, which seems to be the primary point of the above discussion. Quote
prole Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I always thought "more than 12 years of education" implied college... Quote
prole Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) Bit more substantial... There is a direct relationship between education and health—better educated individuals have more positive health outcomes. This association remains substantial and significant even after controlling for job characteristics, income, and family background. This suggests that educational policies have the potential to substantially improve health. Cutler and Lleras-Muney suggest that policies that promote college attendance would be particularly beneficial. They also suggest a role for improving the quality of schools. Edited June 22, 2011 by prole Quote
prole Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Hey Jim, rather than pile on the indicators pointing to the positive benefits of higher education, it would probably just be easier for you and Jay to post those studies showing the negative impacts that higher education is having on people's lives. I mean, good lord... Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 Yes, education is "good" - for a lot reasons. Good things are not cheap, and there's no such thing as a free lunch. You seem to want to deny both. So what is your "solution" to rising costs of higher education? Other than just shifting the payments for the rising bills to someone other than you, that is. Quote
j_b Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 If you could actually provide some data, not a narrative, opinon, or Op-Ed article to back any of this up I might tend to agree. I'm not denying it - but again - the above just your opinion with out any backup. Where did you learn to debate - the internets? No, I usually tend to debate with people whose statements are based in reality and not the propaganda put out by neolib think tanks, which JayB only needs to spew without supporting evidence for you to be content apparently. I never thought I would see the day when I needed to justify the statement that higher ed leads to better outcomes whereas the opposite would go unchallenged by "liberals". Quote
prole Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 I actually liked your idea of reforming some of the administrative bloat, revisiting fancy construction projects that don't add educational value, competition for the cushiest dorms, athletic programs, shit like that... Quote
j_b Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 OK. Now we're talking. Benefit to education - better health. Except - they were talking about a high school education - not the benefit of college, which seems to be the primary point of the above discussion. are you pulling our leg? education leading to better outcomes is pretty much a given in educational research. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted June 22, 2011 Posted June 22, 2011 higher ed leading to better outcomes is pretty much a given Guess that's why it is so valuable (expensive). Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.