Quote:
Originally Posted by RightinNYC  I honestly don't think you have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. There is no way that a rational person could consider anything that you said to be a response to any of my points. |
The problem is that you haven't actually made any points. You haven't referred to the consequences of the education investment and why it has reduced social mobility. I'm therefore restricted to trying to maneuver you towards making something that achieves treasured twittering
Quote:
|
You continue to avoid the question of whether the mobility that you describe is necessarily beneficial
|
An increase in education investment that reduces social mobility (consistent with those low ability kiddies from richer backgrounds now able to go to university and take opportunities from high ability kiddies from poor backgrounds) is not consistent with any human capital celebration.
Quote:
|
you completely miss the gaping lack of credible support for your ideas on the causes for the problem
|
I've referenced an empirical study that supports my stance. We have comments like:
”the rapid expansion of the higher education system over this period was concentrated among people from higher income backgrounds. This has acted to slow down and restrict the extent of mobility up or down the distribution across generations”. And what is behind that previous mobility? Innate ability
Quote:
|
you keep focusing on the completely tangential question of funding for higher education
|
Here, you're merely showing a lack of comprehension over the human capital model. We would expect differences in education investments according to concerns independent of ability; i.e. as mentioned, the student from richer background can fund their investment at a lower interest rate. Theoretically, this will reduce the benefits of the education sector (given we cannot be assured that the high ability students, more suited to the tertiary education environment, will be the investors). Funding becomes key in reducing these problems. Social mobility, via education, is then consistent with ensuring the human capital role of education is maximised.
Quote:
|
you support your arguments solely through unrelated quotes and leaps in logic
|
What unrelated quotes? Adam Smith? Important to show the importance of education for the wage distribution (with pubic education integral). The original journal article? Clear empirical evidence that the British education investment has failed to deliver with its system. We aren't seeing the most able students investing, sparking off greater social mobility consistent with innate ability.
Quote:
|
and you seem reluctant to engage in critical thought as it relates to my questions.
|
A tad repetitive. See the beginning of this response.
E