You are a bad person if you send your children to private school. Not bad like murdererbad—but bad like ruining-one-of-our-nation’s-most-essential-institutions-in-order-to-get-what’s-best-for-your-kid bad. So, pretty bad.
I am not an education policy wonk: I’m just judgmental. But it seems to me that if every single parent sent every single child to public school, public schools would improve. This would not happen immediately. It could take generations. Your children and grandchildren might get mediocre educations in the meantime, but it will be worth it, for the eventual common good. (Yes, rich people might cluster. But rich people will always find a way to game the system: That shouldn’t be an argument against an all-in approach to public education any more than it is a case against single-payer health care.)
So my question is, how would a generation getting mediocre education produce a better teachers for the future kids? It won’t. But again…. we might be already past the point of no return….
A genius boy whose IQ is higher than Albert Einstein is on his way to possibly winning a Nobel Prize after being set free of special education programs in public schools. His mother made the decision to take him out of the programs, even after having doctors diagnose him with ADD and say that her sonJacob Barnett would never even learn to tie his shoes. She describes in her book “The Spark: A Mother’s Story of Nurturing Genius” that she was afraid of trying to pull him out of school. “For a parent, it’s terrifying to fly against the advice of the professionals. But I knew in my heart that if Jake stayed in special ed, he would slip away.”
Jacob was not thriving in special ed classes. He kept turning deeper into himself and was uncommunicative with other people. His doctors diagnosed ADD and prescribed medical treatment for the boy. When he wasn’t in therapy though, his mother noticed him doing amazing things. “He would create maps all over our floor using Q-tips. They would be maps of places we’ve visited and he would memorize every street.”
Jake dropped out of elementary school in the 5th grade. His incredible memory allowed him to attend university classes after he learned all of high school math in two weeks. Now he’s on track to graduate from college at age 14 and working on theories to build on Einstein’s theory of relativity.
In the past, a college degree all but assured job seekers employment and high earnings, but today, what you make depends on what you take. In Hard Times 2013, we show differences in unemployment and earnings based on major for BA and graduate degree holders. We show that STEM — Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics — majors typically offer the best opportunities for employment and earnings, while unemployment is higher for graduates with non-technical degrees.
Here are some of our major findings:
1. Even as the housing bubble seems to be dissipating, unemployment rates for recent architecture graduates have remained high (12.8%). Graduate degrees and work experience did not shield these graduates from a sector-specific shock; graduates with experience in the field have the same jobless rates as the economy overall (9.3%)
2. Unemployment is generally higher for non-technical majors, such as the arts (9.8%) or law and public policy (9.2%).
3. People who make technology are still better off than people who use technology. Unemployment rates for recent graduates in information systems, concentrated in clerical functions, is high (14.7%) compared with mathematics (5.9%) and computer science (8.7%).
4. Unemployment rates are relatively low for recent graduates in education (5.0%), engineering (7.0%), health and the sciences (4.8%) because they are tied to stable or growing industry sectors and occupations.
5. Graduates in psychology and social work also have relatively low rates (8.8%) because almost half of them work in healthcare or education sectors.
Degree by itself is useless. Especially during a bad economy students need to consider more than just the end result to truly get the most out of their education. In this day and age, students — undergraduate or graduate — need to do more to achieve success than walk across the stage and grab a piece of paper. Is it worth all that time and debt? For some degrees yes for others not. So choose wisely and do research and think twice before getting loans and going to college.
The federal government is staring at a disastrous fiscal picture with debt approaching 200 percent of GDP within two decades if Congress doesn’t change course on spending and taxes, according to the latest analysis by the Congressional Budget Office released Tuesday.
CBO analysts said the downturn and Congress’s response have been devastating for the government. Federal debt as a percentage of GDP — a standard measure of a government’s debt burden — stood at 40 percent at the end of 2008. But it will top 70 percent by the end of this year, and is only headed higher unless Congress changes course. The ratio could double by the middle of the next decade and will have topped 200 percent of GDP — twice the size of the projected U.S. economy — by 2037.
…………….There is, of course, still the question of whether more borrowing will increase anxiety about a government’s creditworthiness. It should not, as long as the proceeds of borrowing are used either to future spending or raise future incomes.
Standard & Poor’s has warned it could cut Australia’s coveted AAA rating if the federal government abandons plans to return the budget to surplus in response to a global recession triggered by the European debt crisis, a local newspaper reported.
Mitt Romney maintains that “President Barack Obama is holding on to the government’s stake in General Motors to avoid an embarrassing financial loss before the election, and says he’d sell the stock quickly if he wins the White House,” according to the Detroit News, which recently interviewed the Republican presidential candidate.
New auto sales came in weaker than expected in May, driven by disappointing results from General Motors, Toyota and Chrysler that showed industrydemand slowed from the first four months.
The sales results, when combined with Friday’s anemic jobs report, suggested the industry could face hurdles in its recovery from a recession four years ago that dragged GM and Chrysler into bankruptcy.
“I know, literally, Barack and I talk about it. Neither one of us would have had any shot,” Biden said. “The same with our wives. Both wives are smarter than both of us. Literally, these very accomplished women would not have any chance without some help.”
Larry O’Bryan, one of the firm’s partners, said he’s received about 32 applications for the $10K per year job, since posting it one week ago. He said that while the pay is low, the lawyer who is eventually hired will gain valuable experience.
ZDF also report that the overwhelming majority of Germans oppose the issuing of Euro-bonds that would mutualize Greek debts. The idea of mutualizing debt has been suggested as a way out of the Euro-zone crisis but would involve deeper political integration between the Euro-zone countries.
On the question of Greece’s further participation in the Euro, 49% favored a Greek exit in a previous poll in November 2011, compared to this week’s 60%.
Many in the political class, including President Obama and many members of Congress, have an interest in confusing, rather than enlightening, the public. The effort to misinform about the growth in spending and the impact of government spending on job creation reached a new level last week when the president claimed he was the most restrained spender since President Eisenhower and that spending was up only a little more than 1 percent (over what?).
Presidents do not set spending levels, but they do influence them.Congress has the responsibility under the Constitution to tax and spend, and not one dollar can be spent legally by the government without the permission of Congress. Congress is elected in November of even-numbered years. The members take office in January of the following year. The federal fiscal year runs from Oct. 1 until Sept. 30 of the next year, and therein lies the opportunity for obfuscation.
In 2006, the Democrats won control of both houses of Congress. By the time the new Congress was seated in late January 2007, approximately a third of the 2007 fiscal year was already over.
It is a myth that increases in government spending create jobs. The correct way to measure job creation is to look at the percentage of the adult population that is employed. The unemployment rate numbers only indicate those who are still looking for work and do not measure those who have become discouraged and dropped out of the workforce. The chart clearly shows increases in government spending are associated with fewer jobs, not more. The data for the past hundred years shows the same negative relationship between the growth in government and the number of jobs. It is no coincidence that European and other countries with larger governments almost always have lower labor-force participation rates.
Taxpayers in the small, financially stricken New England state are on the hook for tens of millions of dollars loaned out to the video game company38 Studios. Founded by former Boston Red Sox star pitcher Curt Schilling, the company was supposed to bring jobs for skilled professionals to a state struggling to expand its workforce. But on Thursday, 38 Studios laid off its entire staff of roughly 400 employees with no pay. It also cancelled their health insurance.
For a lack of a better description, 38 Studios went out of business. Now Rhode Island is stuck with the tab of roughly $112 million in loan principal, interest and fees. There’s little chance taxpayers will make up even a quarter of their potential losses, according to industry experts.
The story of 38 Studios has everything: sports stars, political incompetence, government bailouts, taxpayer outrage and — the kicker — big-budget video games.
Some would apparently prefer a society where all-wise elites would decide what each of us “needs” or “deserves.” The actual history of societies formed on that principle — histories often stained, or even drenched, in blood — is of little interest to those who mistake wishful thinking for idealism.
At the very least, many intellectuals do not want the poor or the young to have to take “menial” jobs. But people who are paying their own money, as distinguished from the taxpayers’ money, for someone to do a job are unlikely to part with hard cash unless that job actually needs doing, whether or not that job is called “menial” by others.
People who lack the skills to take on more prestigious jobs can either remain idle and live as parasites on others or take the jobs for which they are currently qualified, and then move up the ladder as they acquire more experience. People who are flipping hamburgers at McDonald’s on New Year’s Day are seldom flipping hamburgers there when Christmas time comes.
To hear politicians tell it, the college diploma is the guaranteed gateway to middle-class life, so everybody should probably go to college. The argument seems self-evident—over a lifetime, college graduates far out-earn those without a degree ($2.1 million, supposedly), so go to college, live the American Dream. Unfortunately, as many recent college graduates have discovered, diplomas no longer guarantee success.
A Bureau of Labor Statistics study, reported that in 1992 some 119,000 waiters and waitresses had college degrees. But by 2008, this figure had soared to 318,000. The study also found similar increases of under-employment in other low-level occupations. In 2010, the unemployment rate for college graduates was the highest since 1970.
…..Which brings me to some suggestions inspired by Washington University law professor Brian Tamanaha in his new book, “Failing Law Schools.”
For starters, he’d apply “gainful employment” rules to all schools, where now there’s talk only of imposing them on for-profit colleges. Basically, if too many of its graduates are in default on their loans (or using the “income-based repayment” safety net), a school would lose eligibility for further student loans.
If you’re not educating your students well enough to let them pay off their loans, maybe you shouldn’t be taking their money.
Alternately, cap the total amount of student-loan money available per school. Right now, the more a school charges, the more student-loan cash is available. Students take on massive debt, but the school gets its money up-front, risk-free. Tamanaha would limit the amount available to the schools, giving them an incentive to keep tuition down.
The college-for-all crusade has outlived its usefulness. Time to ditch it. Like the crusade to make all Americans homeowners, it’s now doing more harm than good. It looms as the largest mistake in educational policy since World War II, even though higher education’s expansion also ranks as one of America’s great postwar triumphs.
Consider. In 1940, fewer than 5 percent of Americans had a college degree. Going to college was “a privilege reserved for the brightest or the most affluent” high-school graduates, wrote Diane Ravitch in her history of U.S. education, “The Troubled Crusade.” No more. At last count, roughly 40 percent of Americans had some sort of college degree: about 30 percent a bachelor’s degree from a four-year institution; the rest associate degrees from community colleges.
The U.S. employment agency’s 2012 Talent Shortage Survey found that 1 in 3 global employers are finding it difficult to find the right people to fill the jobs they’re offering.
The survey has shown that the skills shortages are most severe in Asia Pacific (at 45 percent) and the Americas (41 percent) with the supply and demand of skilled workers posing the biggest problem to employers, Arkless told CNBC’s “Worldwide Exchange”.
In it he attacks Mitt Romney calling him a silver spoon born elitist, who doesn’t care about the struggles of the young people seeking higher education and just encourages them to borrow and risk money to get ahead…
Let’s start with some advice Mitt Romney gave to college students during an appearance last week. After denouncing President Obama’s “divisiveness,” the candidate told his audience, “Take a shot, go for it, take a risk, get the education, borrow money if you have to from your parents, start a business.”
The first thing you notice here is, of course, the Romney touch — the distinctive lack of empathy for those who weren’t born into affluent families, who can’t rely on the Bank of Mom and Dad to finance their ambitions. But the rest of the remark is just as bad in its own way.
I mean, “get the education”? And pay for it how? Tuition at public colleges and universities has soared, in part thanks to sharp reductions in state aid. Mr. Romney isn’t proposing anything that would fix that; he is, however, a strong supporter of the Ryan budget plan, which would drastically cut federal student aid, causing roughly a million students to lose their Pell grants.
But Krugman fail to point who’s fault is that the college education cost more and more every year.
It is the colleges and universities that are raising the prices and it is because of the government willing to give almost everyone easy money to go to college.
If students has to be mad at someone for the ever rising tuitions, they should be mad at their college/university administrations
First of all, the current legislation that is sucking all of the air out of the room is just not very impressive, because it is not the interest rates that are compelling citizens to take up residence in public spaces across the country- it is the sticker price on colleges, and the predatory foundations of the lending system that stand behind them.
Secondly, the legislation in question only affects a small portion of loans, namely, undergraduate, subsidized Stafford loans. Moreover, the current interest rate is 3.4%, and keeping this fixed as opposed to allowing it to double to 6.8% really does not impact the borrower’s bottom line very much. Most importantly, this legislation does absolutely nothing to control the (nearly) hyperinflation that has gripped academia for years and decades. This is not to say this is unneeded legislation. It is needed. But if President Obama thinks that he can phone this one in, and be done with the student loan issue for a while, he had better think again.
The way to affect college pricing meaningfully is to freeze, or even lower the federal lending limits on federal student loans. This will not happen until the Federal government has skin in the game on the side of students, instead of against them, due to the absence of bankruptcy protections.
And I really do not understand why everyone has to get a college education. We must promote a educational system that make people think rather than make drones knowing everything in the world but who do not have an opinion for anything. Consider the following reading - Creating Innovators: Why America’s Education System Is Obsolete
“Today knowledge is ubiquitous, constantly changing, growing exponentially… Today knowledge is free. It’s like air, it’s like water. It’s become a commodity… There’s no competitive advantage today in knowing more than the person next to you. The world doesn’t care what you know. What the world cares about is what you can do with what you know.”
America was great not because everyone was entitled to college education, but because everyone was free to express their ideas and realize them even without going to college. A lot of America’s great companies were started by people who are college drop outs. Again - The world doesn’t care what you know. What the world cares about is what you can do with what you know.
It’s just plain arrogant for anyone to consider their job underemployment. We have two concerns about this idea of “underemployment”:
First, when people get a job, there is nothing stopping them from making their own luck.
Second, reinforcing this idea of “underemployment” contributes to a culture of “entitlement”.
Let’s talk about making your own luck:
One woman we know was a graduate of one of the finest universities in the U.S. with a very high GPA. When she graduated, she wanted to live in Los Angeles. And the only way she could live there was to get a job. It was hard to get a job, so she took a clerical position. And over the next few years, she watched, listened and got a bunch of accreditations. Eventually, she evolved in her career and is today one of the top people in her field and very comfortable.
A young man we know got a joint dance and business degree. What, exactly, do you do with that? No worries. He got a job selling ladies shoes on a commission-only basis; today, he is the top sales person for a leading retail chain and well on the way to success.
Another woman we know had a baby during her senior year at a prestigious research institution. She knew she had to get a job immediately upon graduation and that the job market was tough; her degree in Animal Science guaranteed her nothing. So she created a position supporting a research lab. Nonetheless, she distinguished herself as a go-getter with unique ideas. She became highly sought-after in her original field and, ultimately, created several new opportunities and grew them. She now makes more money and more important decisions than most people she knows with twice as much education.
And then there’s the man who graduated from an engineering school in his home country. But when he came to this country, the only job he could get was serving food in one of the ethnic restaurants of his upbringing. Over time, he leveraged this and became the president of a company that consults to small businesses and restaurants. Clearly, he has done quite well.
We all know stories like these. They are not just the occasional “Horatio Alger” tale. They are all around us.
Now let’s look at this issue of reinforcing the idea of entitlement.
We are all surrounded by mass media about the rare few who live glamorous lives and, seemingly, have anything they want. This, along with other things, have led to an increasing sense that anyone is entitled to that life, without working for it.
But if a person with a 4-year degree can only get a job at Starbucks, McDonalds or a relatively low-level clerical job, they should take it. Where on a college diploma does it provide a guarantee of a certain caliber job? University is not trade school. Although for anyone who believes they are underemployed upon graduation, perhaps trade school would have been a better choice. Should any of the people described above have passed on their opportunities because they were entitled to more?
Yep, here is a flash news for you – the college education does not guarantee that you will be successful in life…
I became sick of commencement speeches at about your age. My first job out of college was writing speeches for the governor of Maine. Every spring, I would offer extraordinary tidbits of wisdom to 22-year-olds—which was quite a feat given that I was 23 at the time. In the decades since, I’ve spent most of my career teaching economics and public policy. In particular, I’ve studied happiness and well-being, about which we now know a great deal. And I’ve found that the saccharine and over-optimistic words of the typical commencement address hold few of the lessons young people really need to hear about what lies ahead. Here, then, is what I wish someone had told the Class of 1988:
1. Your time in fraternity basements was well spent…..
One of the most controversial issues surrounding inequality is work effort. Some on the right argue that top earners are successful in part because they work harder than others. Many on the left argue that the middle class and poor work just as hard – maybe even harder, with multiple jobs — but that the economic deck is stacked against them.
A new study offers evidence that higher-educated (and therefore higher-earning) Americans do indeed spend more time working and less time on leisure than poorer income groups. In fact, while income inequality may be growing, “leisure inequality” – time spent on enjoyment – is growing as a mirror image, with the low earners gaining leisure and the high earners losing.
The paper, by Orazio Attanasio, Erik Hurst and Luigi Pistaferri, finds that both income inequality and consumption inequality (the stuff that people buy) have increased over the past 20 years.
The more surprising discovery, however, is a corresponding leisure gap has opened up between the highly-educated and less-educated. Low-educated men saw their leisure hours grow to 39.1 hours in 2003-2007, from 36.6 hours in 1985. Highly-educated men saw their leisure hours shrink to 33.2 hours from 34.4 hours. (Mr. Hurst says that education levels are a “proxy” for incomes, since they tend to correspond).