Scucca

"Education, education, education" is the chant of the 'third way' social engineering Napoleons spawned by the likes of Uncle Tony Blair. But is it that simple? Take the following quote from Machin and Gregg (2003, A lesson for education: University expansion and falling income mobility, New Economy, Vol 10 Issue 4, pp 194-199):

"The fall in intergenerational income mobility can partly be accounted for by the fact that a greater share of the rapid educational upgrading of the British population has been concentrated on people with richer parents. The unequal increase in educational attainment has been one factor in reinforcing the link between earnings and income of children and their parents. This seems to be an unintended consequence of the expansion of the university system that occurred in the late 1980s and early 1990s. It demonstrates that education policy matters for income equality, and can have wide reaching and long lasting consequences for individuals"

Are we exaggerating the social benefits of higher education? Is higher education primarily about maintaining our social divides?

__________________

aegyptos

Only in a class-ridden society like Britain or India or places where extreme poverty is prevalent. In societies where there is real social mobility higher education has traditionally been the road up. That may be changing. Today, the bachelor's degree has become the functional equivilent of a high school diploma in the United States and has lost much of its economic benefit and social eminence.

Lightdemon

Jean Anyon and her study about social reproduction suggests the public education in general is a driving force for maintaining our social divides.

Social Class and the Hidden Curriculum of Work by Jean Anyon

__________________

Scucca

The UK and the US are peas in the pod when it comes to social mobility. Try, for example, Corak (2006, Do poor children become poor adults?, Lessons for public policy from a cross country comparison of generational earnings mobility):

"The United Kingdom, the United States, and to a slightly lesser extent France, are the least mobile countries with 40 to 50% of the earnings advantage high income young adults have over their low income counterparts being associated with the fact that they were the children of higher earning parents."

aegyptos

While its true that poor parents are likely to spawn poor children who will become poor adults the fault lies with the world view of the poor more than it does with any other single factor. This propensity to stay poor is less marked in the United States than in Britain.

When referring to my posts, please do not post any more links to leftist professor's agitprop. Use you own words to reply to me if you must reply to anything I post. I have learned not to pay any attention to your links because they are always irrelevant to the subject of my posts and political in tone tending to support the political views of the red professoriate where they originate. Your links are always dead.

Scucca

The US also has a poor record in terms of income mobility. Consider, for example, Gangl (2005, Income Inequality, Permanent Incomes, and Income Dynamics: Comparing Europe to the United States, Work and Occupations, Vol. 32 No. 2, pp. 140-162):

[i]“n most of Europe, real income growth was actually higher than in the United States, many European countries thus achieve not just less income inequality but are able to combine this with higher levels of income stability, better chances of upward mobility for the poor, and a higher protection of the incomes of older workers than common in the United States”.

I expect anti-intellectualism from right wingers. However, there is no need for you to join the herd. It is good practice to use empirical evidence in support. That evidence, when possible, should be from peer reviewed published journal that ensures quality control is maintained.

Questioning your stance is perhaps unthinkable? Personally I'll craft hypothesis according to political economy and, via the available evidence, test that hypothesis. I suppose this could be a potential social benefit from higher education: a robust questioning technique is more likely.

aegyptos

Do not post any more links to your favored political tracts. Thank you.

Scucca

Empirical evidence in academic journals will tend to scare the faith driven. Its a symptom of learned helplessness.

I've referred to the empirical evidence to show how your hypothesis is not supported. The rational response would be to ditch the hypothesis. However, I'm not holding my breath

aegyptos

Decidedly not empirical. IZA is a left-wing think tank headquartered in Germany. Your links are to political tracts disguised as scholarly studies. They are dead on arrival. Please do not post them again to support your anti-American and pro-socialist views. Thank you. If you must respond to my posts you must do so only in your own words sans any links or I will ignore you.

Scucca

You best check under your bed for bolsheviks!

The IZA provide some of the best labour economic analysis in Europe. The paper is a working paper but, given it can take several years to get through the peer review process, that is tolerable. We can of course refer to other sources in support. I've already given one, another is Blanden et al (Intergenerational Mobility in Europe and North America): "the extent of intergenerational mobility for sons is lowest in the UK and US, is at intermediate levels for West Germany and is highest for the Scandinavian countries". If you're not happy with any of them, perhaps you'd like to offer an alternative source of international comparison? There is no excuse for anti-intellectualism dear chap.